# ·/.l _, . ., THE COLLECTOR (DISTT. MAGISTRATE) ALLAHABAD AND ANR v. RAJA RAM JAISWAL ETC - **Citation:** [1985] 3 S.C.R. 995 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1985-04-29 - **Bench:** D.A. Desai, V. Balakrishna Eradi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/l-the-collector-distt-magistrate-allahabad-and-anr-v-raja-ram-jaiswal-etc-9052 - **Pages:** 26 ## Headnote 995 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 section 4 (J), scope of-Acquisilion of Land for public purpose-Whether notification In the official gazette and causing public notice of the substance of such notification the. need of a ·rand for a public purpose, mandatory-Concept of pfejudice-Wlrere in a case, objections have been filed to the· acquisirion proceedings, pursuant to an earlier notification whether non publication and non notification of its substance in ihe locality and of a corrigendum thereof issued later would still vitiate the proceedingS under section 4 (/)-Effect of the world "shall" in section 4 (I)-When malafideS are attributed, imp/eading of the proper party· effected thereby' is obligatory-Ma/afides-Legal ma/afides. explained. ,,, Raja Ram Jaiswa1 along with the mC'inbers of his family purchased land bearing. p!Ot No. 26 with a building thereon admeasuring 2978 sq, yds. situated at K.P. Kakkar Road in Mclrch 1970. The plan for a sound proof air-condition .. ed cinema. theatre on the said plot subrriitted by hifn was sanctioned both by the District Magistrate and the local Municipality in December, 1970 and thereafter he applied for a certificate of approval under Rule 3 read with Rule 7 (2) of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 for construction of a Cinema theatre. The Hi~di Sabit:Ya Sammelan which _was initiaily formed a~ a voluntary organisation in 1910 and rI H ·.In the meantime, by Notification dated February r, 1975, the earlier Noti· fication dated January 31, 1974 was cancelled and a fresh Notification was issued to acquire uland bearing No. 62 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds." and published in the lJ.P .. Gar:ette on February 15,'"1975. Consequently .Writ Petition No. 1932174 was JZot dismis,.ed a" !nfructuou1:. A notice dated March 6, 1975 under ~ection 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act wa'i served upon the petitioner inviting . him t6 file his objections, if any. The" petitioner filed detailed objections .on March 8, 1975 inter Olia contending that the acquisition is for a complilly_1,and the pre-requisite for acquisition for a company having not been carried out, the · ar.quisition is bad in law. It was also contended that the petitioner. is tiot the owner or plot No. fi2 ad measuring 8265 sq. yds. Pr ## Text _Characters 0–39,930 of 66,318. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39930 for what follows._ ·/.l _, . ., THE COLLECTOR (DISTT. MAGISTRATE) ALLAHABAD AND ANR. v. RAJA RAM JAISWAL ETC. April 29, 1985 (D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ,) 995 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 section 4 (J), scope of-Acquisilion of Land for public purpose-Whether notification In the official gazette and causing public notice of the substance of such notification the. need of a ·rand for a public purpose, mandatory-Concept of pfejudice-Wlrere in a case, objections have been filed to the· acquisirion proceedings, pursuant to an earlier notification whether non publication and non notification of its substance in ihe locality and of a corrigendum thereof issued later would still vitiate the proceedingS under section 4 (/)-Effect of the world "shall" in section 4 (I)-When malafideS are attributed, imp/eading of the proper party· effected thereby' is obligatory-Ma/afides-Legal ma/afides. explained. ,,, Raja Ram Jaiswa1 along with the mC'inbers of his family purchased land bearing. p!Ot No. 26 with a building thereon admeasuring 2978 sq, yds. situated at K.P. Kakkar Road in Mclrch 1970. The plan for a sound proof air-condition .. ed cinema. theatre on the said plot subrriitted by hifn was sanctioned both by the District Magistrate and the local Municipality in December, 1970 and thereafter he applied for a certificate of approval under Rule 3 read with Rule 7 (2) of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 for construction of a Cinema theatre. The Hi~di Sabit:Ya Sammelan which _was initiaily formed a~ a voluntary organisation in 1910 and rI H ·.In the meantime, by Notification dated February r, 1975, the earlier Noti· fication dated January 31, 1974 was cancelled and a fresh Notification was issued to acquire uland bearing No. 62 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds." and published in the lJ.P .. Gar:ette on February 15,'"1975. Consequently .Writ Petition No. 1932174 was JZot dismis,.ed a" !nfructuou1:. A notice dated March 6, 1975 under ~ection 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act wa'i served upon the petitioner inviting . him t6 file his objections, if any. The" petitioner filed detailed objections .on March 8, 1975 inter Olia contending that the acquisition is for a complilly_1,and the pre-requisite for acquisition for a company having not been carried out, the · ar.quisition is bad in law. It was also contended that the petitioner. is tiot the owner or plot No. fi2 ad measuring 8265 sq. yds. Promptly on March., 13, 1975, a. corringendum was issued and publ.ished. in- the Gazette on March 22",;·1975 correcting the notification dated. February 6, ~975 to read that, instead of,, plot No. 62 Plot, No. 26 be read and instead of area >265 sq. yds., 2865 sq. YdS. be . read. The substance of Gazette the notifications dated 15.1.1975 March 2?r .. \975 were not published in the Jocalit~s.required under section 4 (t). In between the issue of the notification and the ~~rrigendum, the petitioner filed _Writ Petition 3174/75 questioning the .validity ~f~·the notification dated February 6, .1975 and duly a1nending the grounds after issue of. the corrigendum. The High. Court negatived the challenges nemely, (a) that the Notification. was bad .for noncompliance flrnt with the provi~ions of the L1nd Acquisition (CompariieS) RUleS, . 1963; anJ' (b) that the acqui'iition proceedings are malafide but quashe,ct'.the in1pugned notification on the ground of failure to cause public noti~e;· of ,the Substance of Notification under section 4 (l} to be published is the locality. Hence the State appeal (CA No. 2458/80) by spe:ial leave and the Special Leave Petitio.n No. 9019/80 by Raja Ram. Dismissing the State ai)peal and allowing in part the Special Leave · Petition, the Court, . HELD : l. When the ~validity of a Notification is questioned on -.the ground of nialafides, proper parties affected by such an allegation must be impleaded in the petition. In this case. Samme!an's application for iOterVeO'iion · under Order XX Rule 3 of the Supreme Court. Rules 1965 must be- granted , thoi.lgh the Sam me Ian has not moved this Court against the High· Court's order rejecting the application for ilnpleading. [1004D~EJ 2.1 rt is true that ordinarily courts do not interfere at the stage· of Sec. 4 notification because it merely constitutes a proposal w~ich wi11 be meticuloiisty eKa;mined after the objections are filed under Sectien SA by the person.iQiereSted ,,, . • DISTT. MAGISTRATE V. R.R. JAisWAL 997 in. the land wherein all aspects of the matter can be threadbare gone into and A examined. HoWever, as a notification under section 4 (1) initiates the proceedings for acquisition of land and uses the en.pression 'shall' the mandate of the legislature becomes clear and theref~re, the infirmities therein cailnot be wholly overlooked on the specious plea that the courts do not interdict 3.t the stage of a mere proposal. [1006 E-G] 2.2 A bare perusal of seetion 4 (!) clearly shows that in order to comply with the statutory requirements therein set out, a notifiCation stating ~therein the land which is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose has to be published in the official Gazette: The second part of the sub-section provides that 'th~ Conector has to .cause pub1ic notice or the substance of "such notification to be given at convenient places in the IocaHty in wbich ·the land proposed to be acQuired is situated. Both the ct)nditions are mandatory. Unless.both thesecondi· tions are satisfied, section 4 or the Land Acquisition Act cannot be said to have · been complied with. Nor cari Court whittle down a mandate or legislation recog.. nise~ by a long line or decisions solely dePending upon the racts or a given case ; as is herer. Further after th~ 1974 (U.P. Amendment and Validation Act VIII of .]974), Section 4 (I) on its true interpretation may unmistakahty indicate that where the enquiry under Sect.ion 5 A is not di!:pensed with by resorting to Sec. 17 (4), compliance with the second part or Section 4 would be mandatory. [1006H, 1007A-D, 1009D-E] Khub Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and.Or<., [1967] I SCR 120 at . ·125 ; Babu Barkya Thakur v. The State of Bombay, [1961] I SCR 128: Smt. Somavanti and Orr. v. The State of Punjab & Ors., [196J] 2 SCR.774; State of Mysorev. Abdul Razak Sahib, (1973) 1SCR856 referred to. c I) Gangadharaih v. State of Mysore & Ors., (1961) Mys. L.J. 883 approved. £ 2.3 It is not correct to asc;ume that the sole purpose behind publication of substance of Notification in locality. as required secondly iD section 4 (1) of the , Land Acquisition Act is to make requirements of section 5 A ~functio·nally effec- . tive, [1009G] Where a decision. of the Government to be effective and .valid has .to be notified in the Government Gazette. the decision itself doCs not become effectiv~ unless a notification in the Official Gazette follows. Therefore, assuming that a notification is a formal eXpression of a decision of the Government to acquire tand. unless the decision is notified in the Government Gazette by an appropriate· notification, the proceedings for acquisition cannot be said. to have been Initiated and the decision would remain a paper decision. Section 4 (1) further requires that 'the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality! The expression •such notification' in the latter part of Section 4(1) and ·sequence of events therein enumerated would clearly spell out that first the Government should reach a decision to acquire land, · then publish a nodcation under section 4 (1) and simultaneously or within a reasonable time from the date of the publicati~n of the notification c~use ·a notice to be published containing ·$ubstance of such notification meaning thereby that notification which js pub .. F G -H A B c D E F G H 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R. lished. Obviously, therefore, there cannot be a publication in thci Jocality prior to the issuance of the notification. [lOIOB-G] Babu Barkya Thakur v. The State of Bombay, [1961] I SCR 128; Narendra Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors, [1977] 2 SCR 226; State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v.' Vishnu Prasad Sharma & Ors, [1966] 3 SCR 557 held in applicable. .... Mahendra Lal Jain/ v. The State of Uttur Prad'esh & Ors, [1963] Supp, 1 SCR 912 relied on. 3: 1 Where power is conferred to achieve a purpose the power must be exercise reasonably and in good faith to effec!uate the purpose. And in this context 'in good faith' means for legitimate. reasons. Wher~ it is exerciSed for extraneous or irrelevant consideration or reasons, it is unquestionab y a colourable exercise of power or fraud on power and the exercise of power is vitiated. If the power to acquire land is to be exercised, it must be exercised bona fide for the statutory purpose and fof none other. If it is exercised for an extfancous, irrelevant or non-germane consideration, the acquiring authority can be charged with Jegiil malafidcs. In Such a situation there is no question- of any persona 1 ill-will or motive. [l OI8C-E] Municipal Counri/ of Sydney v. Compbel/, [1925] A.C. 338 at 375 quoted with approval. State of Punjab v. Gurdia/ Singh & Ors, [1980] l SCR 1071 explained and foJlowed. · 3.2 Where rower is conferred to achieve a certain purpose, the power can be exercis~d oaly for achieving that· purpose. Section 4(1) confers power on the Governm~nt H!Jd the Collector to acquire land needed for a public purpose. The power to acquire land is to be excercised for carrying out a p1,1blic purpose. If the authoritfos of the Sammelan cannot tolerate the existence of a cinen1a theatre in its vicinity it cannot be said that such a pur· po8e would be a public purpose. The authority of the Sammelan may honestly believe that the existence· of a ·cinema theatre maY have -the ~pernicious, tendency to vitiate the educational and cultural enviorrhent of the institution and therefore, it would like to wish away a cinema theatre in its vicinity. That hardly constitutes public purpose. The proclaimed need of land for putting up Sangrahalya is an easy escape route whenever Sammclao wants tu take over some piece of land. Need of.the land for Sangtahalya is a figment of imagination consured up'to provide an ostensible purpose for acquisition. There is enough land roughly adn1easuring 7315 sq. yds. lying vacant and unutilised with the Sammclan for over a\ quarter of a century. The Sangrahalya has not Come up thoUgh thi3 was the land which was taken fn:irn the. Municipal Board for the avowed object of putting up a Sangrahalya. 1.'he Sammelan moved on to Rangamanch ~nd Natyashala and then ultimately adopted a position that whea the land is made available, scheme will be devised for its proper use. The S.'.1n1mt.lan was ever intcrstcd in acquiring the land for effectuating any of its object~. It Q.as neither the plans QOr the wherewithal nor any specific object ' • nisrr. MAGISTRATB v. R.R. JAISWAL (Desai, J.) ,999,. fOr which it needs land and it is unable to use over years the land already A ~vailable a'.t its disposal. Therefore, the Sammelan was aciuateC:f by CxtraOeo'ii~ ' and irrelevant considerations in seeking acquisitiori of the land and the statutory authority having !ower, TI.arllely, to s3.tis'rY' 1 . the chagrin and anguish of the Sammelan at ,the coming·up of a cinema theatre in the· viCinity of its campus,_ whi~h vowed 'to destro·y. Thetefo-re, the considera .. tion dated 6.2.1975 is illegal and invalid. [l019E-FJ • • ' f . . . . . ( . ,. B CIVIL APPELLA TB JURISDICTION : . Civil .. Appeal .No. 2458 ~and S.L.P. No. 9019 of 1980 '·"' · · "' c I l . .t,1 ·• ".' .•'{ . . . . . ' From 'the Judgment and Order dated 7.12. 1979 of the Allahabad High Court .in Civil• Misc. Writ Petition No. 3174 of 1975. ' • R.N. Trivedi, Additional A4vocate , General, Gopa/ SubramaD nlam and Ms. Shobha Dlkshit for the Appellant~. . F.S Nariman, Raja Ram Agarwal;YogeshwarPrasad, Mr .... Rani Chhabra and Ms. S~man Bagga for the respondent. ., " The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . DBSAI, J. Respondent Raja Ram Jaiswal moved Civil Miscella.neous Writ_Petition No. 3174of1975 under Art. 226 of the Consti-., tution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahadad quesiioningr; the validity of the Notification dated February 6, 1975 issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquistion Act ('Act' for short) as also a"iiotice dated March 6, 197 5 served upon him pursuant to the afore-mentioned notification. The impugned notification was published in the U.P. Government Gazette dated February 15, 1975. Jly this . impugned notification, land bearing Plot No. 62 approximately adme"asuring 8265 sq. yds. was sought to be acquired' as being needed for a public purposse namely for extension of Hindi Sangrahalaya of the Hindi Sahitya Samnielan Piayag:. A substances of this notification was published in the. locality where "the land sought to be acquired is situate. On March 22, 1975, a corrigendum dated March 13, 1975 was published by which the impugned notification dated February 15, 1975 was to stand corrected .Plot No. 26 instead , of. 62 and the area sought to be acquired to be.· read as 2865 sq. yds, E H A B c 1000 SUPRBMQ COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R. instead of 8265 sq. yds. After the publication of the corrigendum the petitioner sought amendment of the petition which was granted. Validity of the amended notification was challenged on diverse grounds. However, atthe hearing of the petition, the challenge was confined to the following four grounds as summarised in the judgment of the High Court. They may be extracted : "!. Notification dated 6. 2. 75 issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is invalid in as much as it had been issued without first complying with the provi· · sions of rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) 1 ~·' ,. Rules, 1963. 2. Acquisition proceedings are mala fide. ·' 3. Notice under section 4(1) of the Act was served.upon the petitioner on 6th March, 1975 when only two days time was left for filing objections under Section 5-A n· of the Land Acquisition Act. This rendered the proceedings illegal. E F G H 4. The notification under Section 4(1) did not relate to plot No. 26 belongin_g to the petitioner. Proceeding11 to acquire the said plot are therefore withont juris .. diction." After the petition was amended two· additional grounds of challenge we.re pressed ·on behalf of the respondent.· They are: "1. The notification dated 13th March, 1975 isi nvalid for the very same reason for which the notification dated 6th February; 1973 is Claimed to be invalid. 2; The Land Acquisition proceedings are invalid inasmuch as the notification dated 13th March, 1975 was neither published nor was its substance notified in the locality, as also because no notice thereof had been served upon the petition<:r." Negativing all the challenges. except th<: one that as thete was failure to cause public notice of th<: substance of notification ·linde.r Sec. 4(\) to be published at convenient place in the. locality on • ., DISTT. MAGISTRATE V R. R. JAISWA.L (Desai, J.) 1001 this short ground, the impugned notification was quashed. Hence A this appeal by the Collector, Allahabad and the Land Acquisition Officer by special leave. · Respondent who was the ·original petitioner but is respondent in the appeal filed by the Collector will be referred to as the petitioner in this judgment. Petitioner field Special Leave Petition No. 9019 of 1980 against the same judgment contending that the High Court committed an error in rejecting . the challenge to the validity of the impugned notification on the ground of legal mala fides· as also on the gronnd of non-compliance with Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. As both these matters arise out of the same judgment, . they were _heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. It may be mentioned that connected Civil Appeal No. 2437 of 1981 was to be taken up for hearing after the hearing concluded in· the present appeal _ and therefore, the judgment in this matter was postponed because the observations in one were likely to have some impact on the disposal on merits of the contentions in the cognate appeal. Though very much delayed by circumstances beyond our . control, few days back the hearing in the cog'Oate appeal is over and therefore, both· t_he appeals can now be disposed of though by Separate judgments. A brief resume of the facts leading to the writ petition field in the High Court would be quite instructive in this case. The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan ('Sammelan' for short) for whose benefit ttie land was sought to be acquired was initially' formed as a volun- .iary organisation in 1910 and on January 8, _1914 it was regist~red as a society under the Societies Registration Act retaining the same name. Somewhere in 1950 diffierences arose between the. members of the society and the attempt to ~lier the constitution of the society, ultimately led to litigation. U.P. Legislature enacted aa Act styled as U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act No. 36 of 1956 under which a statutory body was created under the. name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. The statutory body was to take over the management and properties of th_e society. The Act was however struck down as unconstitutional.in Dainyanti Naranga v. Union of India & Ors.(1) The pre-existing Sammelan which was a registered society (I) (1971) 3 S.C.R. 840 B c D E F G H 1002 SUPRBME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.R. '11 continuea to function as such. lt is for the benefit of the Sammelan that the land involved in the dispute was sought to be acquired. According to the Sammelan, it is in need of land for building ~Sangrahalaya' which was roughly translated as mu~eum-cum-library • . cumreading room. B c D E. • F G At tbe instance of the Sammelau. Allahabad Municipal Board agreed to hand . over the land and building in which a municipal school was located, situated at Kamta Prasad Kakkar Road adja· cent to the Central ·office and Press of the Sammelan, on certain conditions. The Sammelan needed the land, as it was then declared, ·to establish a mnseum. The land with the school building · y thereon was transfeued to the Sammelan in 1953. It may be mentioned that even till today the area of land admeasuring 7315 sq. yds. in .possession of the Sammelan is lying vacant and for the qnarter of a century, mnseum has not come up. This aspect is mentioned in some detail as it has an impact on the contention .canvassed in these appeals. . Petitione; Jaiswal along with the members of his family purchased land bearing plot No. 26 with a buildi;;g thereon admeasuring 2978 sq. yds. situated at K. P. Kakkar Road in March 1970. The petitioner wanted to ·build a sound-proof air-conditioned cinema theatre on the plot NJ. 26 purchased by him. The plan for the proposed theatre was sanctioned both by the District Magistrate and the local mnnicip11ity in December 1970. It may be recalled here that the jndgment of this Conrt holding Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act nnconstitntional was rendered on February 23, 1971. . The Sammelan was wholly opposed to the construction of a theatre near its campus as in its view a theatre and a research-cum-study centre can go ill together. Therefore, when the petitioner applied for a certificate of approval under Rule 3 read ·with rule 7(2) of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules 1951 for construction of a cinema theatre, authorities of the Sammelan raised a . storm of protest, sometimes peaceful occasionally likely to turn violent impelling authorities to impose restrictive orders under Sec. 144, Code of Criminal Procedure. Sammelan also submitted a long memorandum setting out its objections with a view to persuading the authorities not to grant a certificate of approval for construction of a cinema " H (I) [1971] 3 S.C.R. 840 ' ' biSIT. MAGISTRATE v. R. R. JAiSWAL (Desai, I.) 100~ building. Overruling the , objections the District Magistrate, the Licencing Authority under the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 granted the requisite certificate of approval under Ruk 3 which would in law imply that havirig regard to th.e provisions of the 1955 Act and 1951 Rules, there was no legal impediment to constructing a cinema theatre on plot No. 26. Thereupon, Secretary of the Sammelan addressed a letter to the Chief Minister of. State of U.P. complaining against the grant of the permision by the District Magistrate and requesting the Chief Minister to cancel the permission. Ultimately, having failed to thwart the grant of certificate of approval, the Sammelan wrote a letter on October 13, 1971 for acquiring land bearing Plot No. 26. It may be recalled that the certificate of approval for constructing a cinema building was granted · by the District Magistrate on March 24, 1972. The Sammelan addressed various letters to various authorities including the then Prime Minister of India requesting them to cancel the certificate of approval granted to the petitioner. Ultimately on January 31, 1974, a notification under Sec. 4(1 l of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued stating therein that 'the land bearing plot No. 26 admeasuring approx. 2865 sq. yds. was needed for a public purpose namely for extension of Hindi Sangrahalaya of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag'. This. notification was published in the U .P. Government Gazette on February 9, 1974. A notice under Sec,· 4(1) bearing the same date was served upon the petitioner as also the same was published in the locality. The petitioner challenged the validity of this notification on diverse grounds in Writ Petition No. 1.932/74 and as a measure Zof interim relief, the High Conrt stayed further proceeding that may be taken to acquire the land. In the meantime by notification dated February 6, 1975, the earlier notification under Sec. 4(1) dated January 31, 1974 was1 cancelled and a fresh notification was issued to acquire 'land bearing plot No. 62 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds. for the earlier mentioned public purpose'. Consequently, the writ petition in which the validity·ofthe earlier notification was questioned was disposed of as infructuous. The second notification dated February 6, 1975 was published in tM U.P. Gazette on February 15, 1975. A notice dated March 6, 1975 under Sec. SA of the Land Acquisition Act was served upon the peti' tioner inviting him to file his oojection, if there be any, against the proposed acquisition. The petitioner filed detailed objections on March 8, 1975 inter a/ia contending that the acquisition is for a A .. B c D E F G ·A B c D E E G H 1004 SiJPRBMB CQURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.Ji.. company and the pre-reqnisite for acquisition for a company having not been carried out, the acquisition is bad in law. It was also contended that the petitioner is not the own.er of plot No. 62 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds. Promptly on March 13, 1975, a corrigendum was issued and published in the Gazette on March 22, 1975 correcting the notification dated February 6, 1975 to read that instead of plot No .. 62, plot No. 26 be read and instead of area 8265 sq.· yds. 2865 sq. yds. be read. In· between the issue. of the notification and the corrigendum, the petitioner filed Writ ·Petition 3174/75 questioning the validity of the notification dated February 6, 1975; The High Court struck down the notification as invalid and during the penISTT. MAGISTRATE v. R.R. JAISWAL (Desai, J.) 109s publis)l.ed in the Official Gazette and thus the. requirement of the second part of Sec. 4(1) has not been complied. w.ith. The. finding that there was no such publication as herein indicated w.as not seriously questioned and in fact could not be questioned. A few facts will affirmatively establish it. The first notification dated January 31, 1974 was published in the o.flicial Gazette dated February 9, 1974 and in respect of which a notice was published in. the locality in March, 1974. A copy of the notice was served on the petitioner on March 6, 197 4. This notification bore the number 78· V.III-LAQ and it was in respect of plot N~. 26 admeasuring 2865 sq. yds. This notification was cancelled and superseded by another notification No. 552-VIII~LAQ dated February 6, 1975, which was published in the Official Gazette dated February 15, 1975. This latter notification clearly recites that•the ear.lier notifi· cation dated February ·9, 1974 is thereby cancelled. In the latter notification dated Feb. 6, 1975, the land proposed to be acquired was· shown to be plot No. 65 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds.· Admit· tedly notice of the substance of this notification was not published 'in the locality. ·The petitioner had nothing to do with· land bear· · ing plot No. 62 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds. As the.previous.notifi· cation was cancelled, he had nothing to worry about the second .notification which has no . relevance to the plot belonging to him. The corrigendum dated March · 13, 1975 was issued and pub~ lished in the Official Gazette dated March 22, 1975 correcting the plot number and the area and the corre~ted entry was to b~ in reference to plot No. 26 and area to be acquired was to be 2865 sq. ycts. Admittedly, there was no notice of publication of the substance o( the notification dated Februa.ry 15,. 1975 nor of the corrige.~dum dated March 22, 1975 in the lacality. The High Court was therefore, right in holding that in respect of the later notification and .corrigendum, no notice was published in the locality and latter part of Sec. 4(1) was .not complied with. Sec. 4(1) in its application to. the State of .U.P. reads as under: "4(1) : Whenever it apppears to the appropriate Government or Collector that land in any locality is needed or is. likely .to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and A B c D E F G the Collector shall cause public notice of.the substance of H A A c D F G H 1006 \ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.C.R. sud( ·noiification 'fo be given at convenient places in the ·'' said locality." • r1' 1 · By . Land Acquisition (U .P. Amend men! And Validation) Act·Vlli of 1974, the section was amended to read as under : ; ,! ~ ' • ·' i. , '"'4(1) : Whether it appears to the appropriate Oovem- • 'ment and the Collector that land in any iocality is needed "or h.likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notifica- .. tion to tliat effect shall lie published in the Official , Gazette, and except in the case of any land to which . by ;virtue of a direction of the Staie Government under 'Sub:section (4) of Sec. 17, the provisions of Sec. 5-A shall not apply,[the[Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient ~ places in the said locality." Though this amendment of 1974 is subsequent to the imptigne and quoted· with approval the statement therein made that a· valid notification under sub-s. (I) of Sec. 4 is a condition precedent to the making of a declaration under · snb-s. (I) of Sec. 6. This view has been consistently followed and was approved in State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib<'J, wherein it was observed that in the case of a notification under Sec: 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the law has prescribed that in adoition to the' pnblication of tbe notification in the Official Gazette, the Collector must also give publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality. Unless both these conditions are satisfied, s. 4 (l) [1967] 1 S.C,R. j20 at 125. (2) [1961} I S.C.R. 128. (3) (1963] 2 S.C.R. 774. (4) [1973] 1 S,C.R. 8~. • A B· c D E ; G A B c D E F ·' G 1008 SUPREME C!'URT REPORTS (1985] js.c.R.. of. the Land Acquisition Act cannot tie said to have been complied with. The publication of a uotice in the locality is a mandatory requirement. Mr. Kacker however, drew our attention to a few more observations. in the judgment wherein it was said that there is an important purpose behind publication of the substance of the notification in the locality because in the absence of such publication, the interested persons may not be able to file their objections challenging the proposed acquisition and they will be denied an opportunity afforded by· s. 5A which confers a very valuable right. Relying on this obse~vation Mr. Kacker urged that if the underlying purpose behind publication of a notice in the locality is to give an opportunity to the· person interested in the land to object to .the acquisition, where in a case the purpose is achieved as in this case the petitioner having filed his objections, the failure to publish the substance of the notification in the locality need not be treated fatal and cannot invalidate the proceedings. The submission as presen· ted is very persuasive and but for binding precedents, we would have accorded considerable attention toit. But we would not whittle down a mandate of legislation recognised· by a long line of decisions solely . depending upon the facts of a given· ca.se. Further the submission is P,redicated upon an assumption that the sole purpose behind publication of substance of notification in locality is to make requirements of Sec. 5A functionally effective. The assumption as would be pointed out is not well founded. In fact, the court in the last mentioned case went so far as approving the decision of the Mysore High Court in Gangadharaih v. State of Mysore & Ors.(1) wherein. it was ruled that '.when a notification under s. 4 (I} is published in the official Gazette and it is accompanied by or immediately followed by the public notice, that a person interested in the property pro-. posed to be acquired can be regarded to have had notice of the proposed acquisition.' This is a mandatory requirement for legal compliance with requirements of Sec. 4 (I). In Narendra Bahadur Si~gh and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors<'> this Court reiterated that a publication of the notice in the locality as required by the second part of s. 4 (I) is mandatory and unless. that nofa:e is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. "Repelling the contention, that H (I) [1%1] Mys. L.J, 883 (2) [19771 2 s.c.R. 226 • • ; .y· , . I i bistt. MAGiSTRATB v. "'· R. !AISWAL (Desai, i.) 1009· the only. purpose behind publicatiQn of a notice in the locality is to give opportunity to.the person intere.sted in the land .to prefer objections under Sec. 5A which confers a v·aluable right, it was held that even though in the facts of that case, the inquiry under s. 5A was dispensed with by a direction under Sec. 17 (4) of the Act, the failure to comply with the second condition in Sec. 4 (I) is fatal. It was pertinently observed that provisions of Sec. 4(1) cannot be held to be mandatory iJ1 one situation and direc; tory in another and therefore, it cqnnot be said that the .only pur· pose behind making the publication ·of notice in the locality manda· tory is to give an opportunity to the persons interested in the land to file objections under Sec. 5A. Of course, what other object it seeks to subserve has been left unsaid. But the answer is not far to seek. At least we have no doubt that the only visible and demonstralle purpose behind publication of the substance of the notification under Sec. 4 (l) in the locality 'where the land proposed to be acquired is situated, is to give the persons interested in· the land due· opportunity to submit their considered objections against the proposed notification. Incidentally~ it may be pointed out that after the 1974 amend-' ment, Sec. 4 (I) .on its true illterpretation may unmistakably indicate that where the enquiry under Sec. 5A is not dispensed with by re• sorting to Sec. 17 (4), compliance with the second part of Sec. 4 would be mandatory. We however do not propose to go into this aspect· because the amendment is subsequent to the notification. ' Mr. Kacker however on behalf of the interveners while conceding. that there cannot be a valid· acquisition unless a notification is published in the Otlicfal Gazette· and a substance of the notification. is published in the lacality, urged that publication in locality need not necessaiily follow·the publication of. the notification in. the Official Gazette but it may. even precede the same because what is of importance is the decision to acquire; the notification and publi· cation of the notice are mere formal expressions of the decision of the G~vt. to start acquisition proceedings. Proceeding along it was said that the second requirement of, Sec. 4 (I) viz. publication of the notice in the locality is only to make effective the provisions of Sec. SA and that such minor defect cannot invalidate notification under Sec. 4. To substantiate this submission, reliance was placed upon the decisions in Babu Barkya Thakur's case, State of Madhya A B c D I E F G 1010 SUPREME CQURT REPQRTS (1985] 3 s.c.R. A Pradesh & Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma & Ors.(') and Narendra Bahadur Singh's case.