# NARENDRAJIT SINGH AND ANR v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 278
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-11-21
- **Case number:** CIVIL APP ELLA TE JUR,ISDICT!ON : . Civil Appeals Nos. 1192 and 1193 of 1967
- **Bench:** S. M. Snoo, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/narendrajit-singh-and-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-4911
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 4-(1)-Notification under-Validity
of Notification which dors not specify locality where land is needed.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification purporting to
be one under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the effect
that. '-'the land mentioned in the Schedule is needed for a public purpose".
Tit~ notification did not specify the locality where the lands were needed.
It further stated. that s. SA was not applicable since the provisions of s.
17 (1) was applicable to the land.
This was followed by a notification
under s. 6 (1).
The appellants challenged the proceedings in the High
Cobrt on the ground, among others, that the notification under s. 4 was
invalid for non-eompliance with the mandatory provisions
of the
Act
rendering the whole proceedings void.
The High Court dismissed the
petitions. Allowing the appeal,
HELD: The issue of a notification under sub ... (1) of s. 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act and
a notification which does not comply with the essential requirement of
that provision of law must be held to be bad.- Section 4( I) does not require that the identity of the land 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. 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 serious nature.
[281 E-F; 283 B-C]
In the instant cases the notifications suffered from
a very serious
defect in that the locality where the lands were needed was not specified.
The notification merely indicated that the lands mentioned in tJie
schedule were needed. The defect in a notification under s. 4(1) cannot
be cured by giving Juli particulars in the notification under s. 6( 1). 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 in as much
as there was no enquiry in between the two notifications and no valid
reason has been put forward why the details specified in the notification
under s. 6(1) could not have been given in the one under s. 4(1). [282 G;
283 F-H]
Babu Barkya Thakur v. Stat.? of Bomba,v & Ors. [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128
and Smt. Somavanti v. State_ of Punjab, [1963) 2 S.C.R. 774, referred to.
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JUR,ISDICT!ON : . Civil Appeals Nos. 1192
and 1193 of 1967.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated October 8, 1963
of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 329 and 323
of 1963.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
NARENDRAJIT SINGH v. u. P. STATE (Mitter, J.)
27&
S. V. Gupte, J. P. Goyal and G. N. Untoo for the appellants
( iri both the appeals) .
'
C. B. Agarwa/a and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents (in both
the appeals) .
B

## Text

278
NARENDRAJIT SINGH AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
November 21, 1969
(S. M. Snoo AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 4-(1)-Notification under-Validity
of Notification which dors not specify locality where land is needed.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification purporting to
be one under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the effect
that. '-'the land mentioned in the Schedule is needed for a public purpose".
Tit~ notification did not specify the locality where the lands were needed.
It further stated. that s. SA was not applicable since the provisions of s.
17 (1) was applicable to the land.
This was followed by a notification
under s. 6 (1).
The appellants challenged the proceedings in the High
Cobrt on the ground, among others, that the notification under s. 4 was
invalid for non-eompliance with the mandatory provisions
of the
Act
rendering the whole proceedings void.
The High Court dismissed the
petitions. Allowing the appeal,
HELD: The issue of a notification under sub ... (1) of s. 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act and
a notification which does not comply with the essential requirement of
that provision of law must be held to be bad.- Section 4( I) does not require that the identity of the land 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. 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 serious nature.
[281 E-F; 283 B-C]
In the instant cases the notifications suffered from
a very serious
defect in that the locality where the lands were needed was not specified.
The notification merely indicated that the lands mentioned in tJie
schedule were needed. The defect in a notification under s. 4(1) cannot
be cured by giving Juli particulars in the notification under s. 6( 1). 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 in as much
as there was no enquiry in between the two notifications and no valid
reason has been put forward why the details specified in the notification
under s. 6(1) could not have been given in the one under s. 4(1). [282 G;
283 F-H]
Babu Barkya Thakur v. Stat.? of Bomba,v & Ors. [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128
and Smt. Somavanti v. State_ of Punjab, [1963) 2 S.C.R. 774, referred to.
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JUR,ISDICT!ON : . Civil Appeals Nos. 1192
and 1193 of 1967.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated October 8, 1963
of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 329 and 323
of 1963.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
NARENDRAJIT SINGH v. u. P. STATE (Mitter, J.)
27&
S. V. Gupte, J. P. Goyal and G. N. Untoo for the appellants
( iri both the appeals) .
'
C. B. Agarwa/a and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents (in both
the appeals) .
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
D
E
F
G
H
Mitter, J.
These two appeals by certificate from a common
judgment of the High .Court of Allahabad arise out of certain
·land acquisition.proceedings in the District of Rampur.
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 s. 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 sub-s. ( 1) of s. l.'./ of the said Act are applicable to the
land, is further pleased under sub-s. ( 4) of the said section to
direct that the provisions of s. 5-A of the Act shall not apply."
The schedule to the notification reads as follows :-
"SCHEDULE
District
Pargana
Mau'.za
Approximate area.
For what pupose
required.
For the rehabilitation of displaced families
from East Pakistan, under
the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India.
Note:-The plan of the lar.d may be inspected in the office o'."" the Collector.-
Rampur."
This was followed by a notification under s. 6 ( 1) of the Act
dated October 28, 1960.
This notification shows that the Governor was pleased to declare under s. 6 of the Act that he was
satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule was needed for a
public purpose and under s. 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 sub-s. ( 1) of s. 17 of the Act to direct the Collector of
Rampur, though no award under s. 11 has been made, on theexpiration of the notice ·mentioned in sub-s. n) of s. 9, to take
possession of the land, being waste or arable land mentioned in
the schedule for a public purpose.
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 s.c.R.
SCHEDULE
District
Pargana
Mauza
ApproxiFor what
R'!·
mate area
purpose
marks.
required.
Rampur
Bilaspur
Gokal
125
For the rehabiliNagri
acres
tatoo of East
Pakistan
displaced
0families,
Ul1der the Minis ..
try of Rehab1li·
tation, Govern ..
ment of Jndia.
The petitioners-appellants before us filed writ petitions in the
High Court on December 1, 1960. The appellant in Appeal
No. 1192 of 1967 was 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 i;>etitions, contained common
<:omplair\ts.
The case of the petitmners 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 s. 4 of the Act was invalid for
non-compliance with 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 s. 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. The State of Bom.bav and
others(') to the effect that the notification under s. 4 was for the
purpose of carrying on a preliminary investigation with it 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 ourpose for which it was sought to be acquired. According
to the Division Bench there was no substance in the pleas rai•ed
on behalf of the petitioners and their appeals were therefore dis·
missed.
(I) [19611 l S.C.R, 128.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NARENDRAJIT SINGH v. u. P. STATE (Mitter, J.)
28 I
Before us Mr. Gupte wanted to urge several points in .supP?rt
of the appeals.
His first contention was that the
notificatio~
under s. 4 was not in compliance with the Act and therefore it
should be struck down and the proceedings held to be illegal.
Sub-s. (I) of s. 4 of the Act provides as follows :
"Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government
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 the
Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of
such notification to be given at convenient places in the
said locality."
Sub-s. (2) of the section shows that it is only after compliance
with the provisions of sub-s. (I) that the officers authorised by -
Government can enter 11pon the land and carry on the operations
mentioned therein.
Section 5A gives persons interested in the
land notified under s. 4(1) a right to object to the acquisition. It
is only after disposal of the objections that the State Government
is empowered when ·satisfied after considering the report made
under s. 5A thllt any particular land is needed for a public purpose
to make a declaration to that effect and such declaration has to
be published in the Official Gazette under sub-s. (2). In the normal course after lands have been declared to be needed for a public purpose the appropriate Government may direct the Collector
to take orders for the acquisition of the land.
Thereafter the
Collector may proceed under s. 8 to mark out the land covered
by the declaration. Section 9 enjoins upon the Collector to cause
public notice to be given at convenient places after compliance
with the provisions of s. 8 that the'Government intends to take
possession of the land and that claims to compensation for interest
in such land may be made to him. Section 1 J enjoins upon the
Collector to hear objections by persons interested after issue of
notice under s. 9 to the measurements made under s. 8 and into the
value of the land. It is only after compliance with the formalities of
this section that the Collector has to make an award as to the true
area of the land and the compensation to be allowed for the land
as also the apportionment of the compensation among all the
persons known or believed to be _interested in the land.
The
Collector after making an award may take possession of the land
under the provisions of s. 16.
In cases of urgency however this elaborate procedure may be
cut short.
Under sub-s. ( 1) of s. 17 the Collector under the
directions of the Government may be authorised in cases of
urgency, on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the
n0tice mentioned in s: 9 sub-s. (I) to take possession of any waste
282
SUPREME COT!TRT REP0RTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
or arable land needed for a public purpose and such land thereupon vests absolutely in the Government.
Under sub:s. (2) of
s. 1 7 the Collector may immediately after the publication of tlie
notice mentioned in sub-s. ( 1) and with the previous sanction of
the appropriate Government enter upon and take possession of the
land if the same be needed owing to any sudden change in the
channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency it
becomes I)ecessary for any Railway administration to acquire the
immediate possession of any land or for
incidental purposes.
Sub-s. ( 4) of the section provides :
"In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of
the appropriate Government, 'the provisions of subsection (1) or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the. provisions
of.
section 5A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a
declaration may be made under section 6 in respect of
the land at any time after the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1) ."
It becomes clear from a perusal of the said sections of the Act
that the process of acquisition must start with a notification under
s. 4.
Even in extremely urgent cases like those
m~ntioned in
sub-s. (2) of s. 17, the notification under s. 4 is a sine qua 11011.
In some cases the Government may not follow up the notification under sub-s. (I) 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 sub-s.
( 1 1 of
'· 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. Ia\\
must be held to be bad.
Section 4 (I) does not require that the identity of the 1'1!\ds
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 headings 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.
A
B
c
D
E
F
As no details were given. the only indication about the Jocaliiy qf
H
the lands was possibly the District of Rampur inasmuch as the
· plan of the land was to be found in the oflice of the Collector o.f
the same district.
Certainly the Act did not intend that all
the
...
I
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
NAllENDRAJIT SINGH V. U. P. STATE. (Mitter, J.)
283
persons owning land in a district should rush to the Collector's
office to find out whether his lands were covered by the notification.
It 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 s. 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 serious nature. In the case of Babu Barkya Thakur ( 1 )
it was pointed out by this Court that
"The proceedings begin with a Government notification under s. 4 that land in any locality is needed or is
likely to be needed for any public purpose."
It is well known that a person interested in the land which is
affected by any notification under s. 4(1) may immediately object
to it and take proceedings in court against it. In Smt. Somavanti
v. State of Punjab(') one of the main questions before this Court
was whether a notification under s. 4 ( 1) and one under s. 6 ( 1)
could be issued simultaneously. Although the Court took the
view that where s. SA was not in the way there was no irregularity
in publishing the notifications on the same day, yet it observed
that:
"notification under sub-s. ( 1) of s. 4 is a condition
precedent to the making of a notification under sub-s.
(1) ofs. 6."
In our view the defect in a notification under s. 4 ( 1) cannot be
cured by giving full particulars in the notification under s. 6 (1).
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 .§pecified in the notification
under s. 6 ( I) could not be given in the one under s. 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 1 eason
of the fact that the petitioners went to court after the issue of the
notification under s. 6 ( I) .
(1) [1%1] I S.C.R. 128.
(2) [1963] 2 S.C.R. 774.
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
Moreover if it was the intention of the Legislature that in cases
/I.
of urgency a notification under s. 4(1) was not necessary, a
suitable provision would have been made in s. 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 by-pass
B
the provisions of s. 5A but not those of s. 4 sub-s. ( 1)
In this view, we did not think it necessary to hear Mr, Gupte
on the other points.
The appeals will therefore be allowed and
the judgment of the High Court set aside.
There will be no order
as to costs,
Y.P.
Appeal allowed.