Case: Narendrajit Singh Anr Vs. State Of U.P. &amp; Anr

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals are as follows: On October 15, 1960 the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification purporting to be one under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the effect that "the land mentioned in the schedule is needed for a public purpose". The notification further showed that"the Governor being of opinion that the provisions of(1) of Section 17 of the said Act are applicable to the land, is further pleased under(4) of the said section to direct that the provisions of Sectionof the Act shall not apply".The schedule to the notification reads asr what purposethe rehabilitation of displaced families from East Pakistan, under the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government ofe plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector. Rampur.This was followed by a notification under Section 6 (l) of the Act dated October 28, 1960. This notification shows that the Governor was pleased to declare under Section 6 of the Act that he was satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule was needed for a public purpose and under Section 7 of the Act to direct the Collector of Rampur to take order for the acquisition of the land.The case being one of urgency the Governor was further pleased under(1) of Section 17 of the Act to direct the Collector of Rampur, though no award under Section 11 has been made, on the expiration of the notice mentioned in subsection (1) of Section 9, to take possession of the land, being waste or arable land mentioned in the schedule for a publicr what purposeor the rehabilitation of East Pakistan displaced families Under the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government ofnts beforewrit petitions in the High Court on December 1, 1960.nts beforewrit petitions in the High Court on December 1, 1960.The appellant in Appeal No. 1192 of 1967 vitas the sole petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3274 of 1960 while his father, Ranjit Singh and two others, brothers of the petitioners were the applicants in Writ Petition No. 283 of 1961. The two writ petitions contained common complaints. The case of the petitioners was that it was the Maharaja of Dewas with whom the petitioners had certain litigation who was responsible for singling them out for the purported acquisition of their land for the rehabilitation of displaced families of East Pakistan. The first ground put forward in both the petitions was that the notice under Section 4 of the Act was invalid forwith the mandatory provisions of the Act rendering the whole proceedings void. The points urged in support of the applications were turned down by the learned single Judge and a Special Appeal therefrom to a Division Bench met with no better fate. The learned Judges of the Division Bench noted that the exact land which was required by the State Government was not specified in the notification and that the petitioners had raised further objection that the notification under Section 4 was invalid because it had not been published at convenient places in the locality. The Division Bench relied on certain observations of this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay, (1961) 1 SCR 128   = (AIR 1960 SC 1203  ) to the effect that the notification under Section 4 was for the purpose of carrying on a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out after necessary survey and levels, and if necessary, digging or boring into the sub soil, whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. According to the Division Bench there was no substance in the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioners and their appeals were therefore dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
8. It becomes clear from a perusal of the said sections of the Act that the process of acquisition must start with a notification under Section 4. Even in extremely urgent cases like those mentioned in(2) of Section 17, the notification under Sec. 4 is a sine qua non. In some cases the Government may not follow up the notification under(1) by further proceedings specially where it finds that the land was unsuited for the purpose for which it is required. But the issue of a notification under(1) of Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act and in our opinion a notification which does not comply with the essential requirement of that provision of law must be held to be bad.Section 4 (1) does not require that the identity of the lands which may ultimately be acquired should be specified but it enjoins upon the Government the duty to specify the locality in which the land is needed. In the instant cases the notifications suffer from a very serious defect in that the locality where the lands were needed was not specified. The notification merely showed that lands mentioned in the schedule were needed. The schedule in its turn though it contained the heading District, Pargana, Mauza and approximate area, gave no particulars of the same and all that was mentioned by way of a note was that the plan of the land might be inspected in the office of the Collector of Rampur. As no details were given, the only indication about the locality of the lands was possibly the District of Rampur inasmuch as the plan of the land was to be found in the office of the Collector of the same district. Certainly the Act did not intend that all the persons owning land in a district should rush to the Collectors office to find out whether his lands were covered by the notification.t was urged before us that the notification was in terms of the section and that the petitioners could not complain inasmuch as the defect was remedied by the notification under S. 6 which was issued within a fortnight after the Section 4 notification.In our view this contention cannot be accepted. Any notification which is the first step towards depriving a man of his property must be strictly construed and Courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a seriousour view the defect in a notification under Section 4 (1) cannot be cured by giving full particulars in the notification under Section 6 (l).In this case it is apparent that even before the issue of the first notification Government had made up its mind to acquire the lands of the petitioners inasmuch as there was no enquiry in between the two notifications and no valid reason has been put forward to explain why the details specified in the notification under Section 6 (1) could not be given in the one under Section 4 (1).The fact that the petitioners did not go to Court immediately after the publication of the first notification is not a matter of any moment. The defects were not cured and cannot be glossed over by reason of the fact that the petitioners went to Court after the issue of the notification under Section 6 (1).Moreover if it was the intention of the Legislature that in cases of urgency a notification under Sec. 4 (1) was not necessary, a suitable provision would have been made in Section 17 for that purpose. The provisions of that section show that even in cases of extreme urgency like the maintenance of railway traffic by reason of any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency, the Legislature only thought it fit to bypass the provisions of Sectionbut not those of Section 4,. In this view, we did not think It necessary to hear Mr. Gupte on the other points.