Case: Special Deputy Collector Vs. J. Sivaprakasam

The preliminary notification was published in the T.N. Gazette dated 15.12.1998. It was also published in two daily Tamil newspapers —on 6.1.1999.3. The said lands (Sy. Nos.186/1 and 186/2) belonged to one V.T. Jayaraman and he was shown as the registered owner/Pattadar of the said lands in the revenue records. He is Stated to have died on 3.11.1978 leaving two sons and two daughters (respondents 1 to 4 herein) as his legal heirs. On the death of V.T. Jayaraman, the said lands bearing Sy. Nos. 186/1 and 186/2 were not mutated in the names of his legal heirs but continued to be in the name of the deceased V.T. Jayaraman in the revenue records. Respondents 1 to 4 leased the said lands in favour of the eleventh respondent (a trust for running an educational institution) on 25.10.1987. Respondents 1 to 4 also sold portions of the said lands to respondents 5 to 10 who in turn, also granted a lease of their portions in favour of eleventh respondent. Thus respondents 1 to 4 were not shown as the owners/occupiers of the said lands in the revenue/municipal records, nor were they in physical possession of the said lands. It is Stated that the eleventh respondent was in exclusive possession of the said lands at the time of issue of preliminary and final notifications and even thereafter.4. The respondents 1 to 11 challenged the acquisition of Sy. Nos. 186/1 and 186/2 under preliminary notification dated 13.11.1998 and final notification dated 2.2.2000 in a Writ Petition (W.P.No.7789/2000) filed on 21.4.2000, contending that the acquisition was invalid for the following reasons: (a) The preliminary notification and final notifications were issued showing the name of a dead person (V.T. Jayaraman) as the owner of the said lands. Respondents 1 to 4 who were the owners of the lands, were not issued any notice in regard to inquiry under Section 5A of the Act thereby denying them opportunity to file objections and participate in the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. (b) The preliminary notification was published in two Tamil Dailieswhich had no circulation in the locality, thereby violating the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. (c) The eleventh respondent was serving the residents of Koyembedu and surrounding villages by using the lands for running a school and college and therefore the said lands should be excluded from acquisition. In the said writ petition, the writ petitioners (respondents 1 to 11) admitted that the eleventh respondent as also respondents 5 to 10 had received a notice dated 9.6.1999 from the appellant calling upon them to appear in the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act; and that respondents 5 to 11 on learning that the lands were notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, had filed their objections dated 9.7.1999 against the acquisition proposal on the ground that a school was running in the said lands and that the lands were far away from the existing market complex.5. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court by order dated 10.4.2003 allowed the writ petition holding that publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the newspaperswhich had no circulation in the locality, did not fulfill the mandatory statutory requirement under Section 4(1) of the Act. Consequently, he quashed the preliminary notifications under Section 4(1) and the subsequent final declaration under Section 6 of the Act.6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant and the State filed a writ appeal contending inter alia that it was not sufficient for the writ petitioners to allege that the newspapers had no circulation in the locality, but they ought to have substantiated the said claim, by production of relevant documents. It was further contended that Section 4(1) of the Act did not require that the newspapers wherein the publication is made should have a wide circulation or be read by every person in the locality; and that it was sufficient if the newspapers were sold in the locality, that is, they had some circulation in the locality, and that one of them at least was in the regional language. The State Government and the appellant did not however choose to file before the High Court any document to show that the two newspapers had any significant circulation. The writ appeal was dismissed by an Appellate Bench of the High Court by the impugned order dated 22.2.2005, holding that no material had been placed by the State Government or the appellant to establish that the two newspapers in which the notification was published had a reasonably wide circulation in Chennai. The Appellate Bench of the High Court rejected the contention that even if the regional language newspapers in which preliminary notification was published had some circulation in the locality, it would meet the requirements of Section 4(1) of the Act and held that the purpose of requiring circulation in the locality is to enable the concerned landowners to know about the said notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and file their objections under Section 5A of the Act or take other legal steps as they deem fit, or prepare to permit survey and marking by the officials; and therefore the newspapers in which the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is published must be newspapers having reasonably wide circulation in the locality. The Appellate Bench observed that there were many fake newspapers which had little or no circulation which existed only for securing such advertisements, and publication in such newspapers will not amount to compliance with the mandatory requirements relating to publication ‘in two daily newspapers circulating in theunder Section 4(1) of the Act even if the said newspapers were registered newspapers having some nominal circulation. The Appellate Bench of the High Court held that the appellants had failed to establish thathad sufficient circulation in the City of Chennai, where the acquired lands were situated and therefore the publication of the preliminary notification in the said newspapers did not comply with the mandatory requirements of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

Reasoning: 19. We have held that the object and purpose of the amended Section 4(1) of the Act is to provide for publication of the preliminary notification in two daily newspapers having reasonably wide circulation in the locality so that people (persons interested) in that locality may become aware of the proposals for acquisition. We have also held that publications in two newspapers having regular and steady circulation, but having a market share of only 2% to 3% of the total newspapers can not invalidate the acquisition proceedings automatically, on the ground that such publication violates the requirement of Section 4(1) relating to newspaper publication. As the said two findings are slightly contradictory, it is necessary to harmonize the consequences.20. This leads us next to the consequences of publication of the notification in two newspapers having reasonably wide circulation and consequences of bona fide publication of the notification in two newspapers which do not have a wide circulation in the locality.20.1 If there is failure to publish in two daily newspapers or if the publication is in two newspapers that have no circulation at all in the locality, without anything more, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated, on the ground ofwith an essential condition of Section 4(1) of the Act.20.2 If the two newspapers carrying the publication of the notification have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, (apart from the publication of the notification in the Gazette and causing public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality), then the requirements of Section 4(1) are complied with and all persons concerned in the locality shall be deemed to have notice of the notification. (For this purpose, the publication need not be in newspapers having the widest or largest circulation, but it is sufficient if the publication is in newspapers having reasonably wide circulation). In that event, neither the notification under Section 4(1), nor the consequential acquisition proceedings would be open to challenge, on the ground of violation of Section 4 of the Act.20.3 If the newspapers in which the notification is published were circulating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then neither the notification under Section 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition proceedings, will become vitiated automatically. If the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two newspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts that as a consequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was provided for in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition to the extent of the land of such person will be vitiated. But if such assertion is rebutted by the acquiring authority by placing evidence to show that the person concerned had in fact notice (as for example where he participated in the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act), the acquisition will not be vitiated on the ground of violation of Section 4A of the Act.20.4 If the person challenging the acquisition is able to establish that the notifications were deliberately and with mala fides, published in newspapers having negligible circulation, to avoid notice to the persons concerned, then Section 4(1) will be violated.21. The acquiring authority need not prove actual notice of the proposal to acquire under Section 4(1) of the Act, to the person challenging the acquisition. As the purpose of publication of public notice provided in Section 4(1) of the Act is to give notice of the proposal of acquisition to the persons concerned, such notice can also be by way of implied notice or constructive notice. For this purpose, we may refer to the difference between actual, implied and constructive notices.21.1 When notice is directly served upon a party in a formal manner or when it is received personally by him, there is actual notice.21.2 If from the facts it can be inferred that a party knew about the subject matter of the notice, knowledge is imputed by implied notice. For example, if the purpose of the notice is to require a party to appear before an authority on a particular date, even though such a notice is not personally served on him, if the person appears before the authority on that date or participates in the subsequent proceedings, then the person can be said to have implied notice.21.3 Notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of certain specified facts and circumstances is constructive or deemed notice. For example, any person purchasing or obtaining a transfer of an immovable property is deemed to have notice of all transactions relating to such property effected by registered instruments till the date of his acquisition. Or, where the statute provides for publication of the notification relating to a proposed acquisition of lands in the Gazette and newspapers and by causing public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality, but does not provide for actual direct notice, then such provision provides for constructive notice; and on fulfilment of those requirements, all persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition are deemed to have notice of the proposal regarding acquisition.Re : Question (ii) : Validity of the acquisition22. The copy of the communication dated 31.3.2004 sent by the Director of Information and Tourism (Advertisement) Department in Tamil Nadu shows that between 1998 to 2000ad a circulation of 6200, 4675, 5200 and 3100 in Central Madras, South Madras, North Madras and Tambaram areas andhad a circulation of 42,000 to 48,000 in Chennai area. On the other hand the material produced by the respondents show that the total circulation of regional newspapers in Chennai was around a million, that several regional newspapers had circulations varying between 80,000 to 2,00,000 in Chennai, and the Madurai Mani with a Chennai circulation of 28465, had a market share of 3% out of the total circulation of regional newspapers.also apparently had a market share of 4% before its closure. The two newspapers were not therefore newspapers having no circulation in the locality. We however agree, having regard to the circulation figures, with the finding of the High Court that the newspapers did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality.23. As both Madurai Mani and Kadiravan were sold and circulated in Chennai and as a good chunk of their total circulations was in Chennai, it may not be possible to hold that the said newspapers were not ‘regional daily newspapers circulating in theNor will it be possible to invalidate the entire acquisition on the ground that the publication in the said two newspapers did not fulfil requirement of publication in ‘newspapers circulating in thatBut if the respondents are able to assert and demonstrate that as a consequence, they were denied the opportunity of participating in the inquiry under Section 5A, or show any other disadvantage, they may be able to achieve the object of showing that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated in so far as their lands were concerned.24. In this case respondents 1 to 11 have challenged the acquisition. Respondents 5 to 11 specifically admitted that they received a notice dated 9.6.1999 from the appellant herein calling upon them to appear before him in the Section 5A inquiry under the Land Acquisition Act. Respondents 5 to 11 further admitted that they enquired and found that the lands were notified and immediately thereafter filed their objections to the acquisition proposals. Therefore, the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in two newspapers which did not have wide circulation in the locality, did not affect respondents 5 to 11 in any manner as they had notice of the proposals for acquisition and participated in the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.25. We may now deal with the grievance of respondents 1 to 4. There is nothing to show that they had any subsisting interest in the two lands, when the preliminary notification was issued. When their father died they did not choose to get their names entered in the revenue records. The death of their father was in 1978 and the preliminary notification was issued in the year 1998 and for two decades they took no steps to get the lands mutated in their names. It is Stated in the writ petition that they had let out the entire property to eleventh respondent and had sold portions of the property to respondents 5 to 10. But they have not disclosed the extents of the portions that were sold and which portions, if at all any, were retained by them. They admit that the purchasers from them (respondents 5 to 10) and their tenant (respondent No. 11) had notice. Therefore, in so far as respondents 1 to 4 are concerned, whether the notification was published in newspapers having wide circulation or not would make no difference and they cannot complain about the absence of publication or about defective publication of notification under Section 4(1) in the newspapers. Even if the publication had been in two newspapers having wider circulation, their names would not have figured therein.26. It is significant to note that there is no averment in the writ petition that respondents were not aware of the proposed acquisition. It is evident that they were aware of the notification. It is also inconceivable that respondents 5 to 11 who knew about the proposed acquisition would not have informed respondents 1 to 4 about the proposed acquisition. Be that as it may. Therefore even if the publication in two regional language newspapers is considered to be not in compliance with the requirements of Section 4(1), it cannot affect the validity of the preliminary notification or the consequential proceedings in regard to Sy. Nos.186/1 and 186/2.27. No other ground is urged to interfere with the acquisition. The acquisition was for an urgent public purpose that is for implementation of further stages of Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. The objections on behalf of the holders of the land had been considered. No prejudice has been caused on account of the publication of the notification in two newspapers having limited circulation in the locality.