# THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR v. UMASHANKAR RAJABHAU AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 39
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-11-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1430 of 1984
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy Ands. Saghir Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-v-umashankar-rajabhau-and-ors-13562
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4( I), 6, 9 and 48( I).
• Land Acquisition-Notification--Declaration--Award-Purchase of
land before publication of notification-No mutation in favour of purC
chaser-Consequentially notices not issued to purchaser-Sale of land by
purchase1~Setting aside of acquisition proceedings f of non issue of notic~
Held not valid.
Land Acquisition-Withdrawal of acquisition-No Notification under
Section 48( I Hf eld Cowt cannot take notice of subsequent disinclination on D
the pa1t of beneficiOly.
For acquisition of 5 acres of land a notification under section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on September ·11, 1970; a
declaration under section 6 was published on July 29, 1971 and the award
was made on September 15, 1971. Before the publication of the notification
under section 4(1) i.e. on June 17, 1968 respondents 1-3 had purchased
three plots from the original owner-Usmanshahi Mill. However, no mutation was effected in their names and therefore notices were not issued to
them. Respondents 1-3 sold these plots to respondent No. 4. The High
Court quashed acquisition in respect of three plots of respondents 1-3 on
the ground that notices required under law have not been issued to them.
Against the decision of the High Court State preferred appeal before this
Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not
require the service of the personal notice nor the one under section 6
declaration. What is needed to be served in the locality and the Gazette
have been complied with. Since mutation had not been effected in the name
E
F
G
of respondents 1-3 though land was purchased prior to the publication of H
39
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
notification under section 4(1), they could not be issued notices as required under section 9. Notice to the 4th respondent is obviously impossible, since the award had already been made on September 15, 1971. His
B
c
D
E
. purchase thereafter is obviously illegal as it does not bind the State after
the notification under section 4(1) was p_ublished. Therefore, the High
Court was wholly unjustified in quashing acquisition in respect of three .
plots of land of respondents 1-3. (41-A-C]
2. So long as there is no notification published under section 48(1)
of the Act withdrawing from the acquisition, the Court cannot take notice
of any subsequent disinclination on the part of the beneficiary. (41-D-E]

## Text

-
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
A
v.
UMASHANKAR RAJABHAU AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 9, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.j
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4( I), 6, 9 and 48( I).
• Land Acquisition-Notification--Declaration--Award-Purchase of
land before publication of notification-No mutation in favour of purC
chaser-Consequentially notices not issued to purchaser-Sale of land by
purchase1~Setting aside of acquisition proceedings f of non issue of notic~
Held not valid.
Land Acquisition-Withdrawal of acquisition-No Notification under
Section 48( I Hf eld Cowt cannot take notice of subsequent disinclination on D
the pa1t of beneficiOly.
For acquisition of 5 acres of land a notification under section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on September ·11, 1970; a
declaration under section 6 was published on July 29, 1971 and the award
was made on September 15, 1971. Before the publication of the notification
under section 4(1) i.e. on June 17, 1968 respondents 1-3 had purchased
three plots from the original owner-Usmanshahi Mill. However, no mutation was effected in their names and therefore notices were not issued to
them. Respondents 1-3 sold these plots to respondent No. 4. The High
Court quashed acquisition in respect of three plots of respondents 1-3 on
the ground that notices required under law have not been issued to them.
Against the decision of the High Court State preferred appeal before this
Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not
require the service of the personal notice nor the one under section 6
declaration. What is needed to be served in the locality and the Gazette
have been complied with. Since mutation had not been effected in the name
E
F
G
of respondents 1-3 though land was purchased prior to the publication of H
39
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
notification under section 4(1), they could not be issued notices as required under section 9. Notice to the 4th respondent is obviously impossible, since the award had already been made on September 15, 1971. His
B
c
D
E
. purchase thereafter is obviously illegal as it does not bind the State after
the notification under section 4(1) was p_ublished. Therefore, the High
Court was wholly unjustified in quashing acquisition in respect of three .
plots of land of respondents 1-3. (41-A-C]
2. So long as there is no notification published under section 48(1)
of the Act withdrawing from the acquisition, the Court cannot take notice
of any subsequent disinclination on the part of the beneficiary. (41-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1430 of
1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.79 of the Bombay High
Court in S.C.A. No. 92 of 1975.
S.M. Jadhav for the Appellants.
V.B. Joshi for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order
dated July 18, 1979.made in Special Civil Application No. 92/75 by the High
Court of Bombay. Notification under section 4(1) acquiring an extent of
about 5 acres of land was published in the State Gazette on September 17,
p
1970 for public purpose, namely construction of staff quarters for
Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation employees. Declaration under
section 6 was published on July 29, 1971. The award also was made on
September 15, 1971.. It would appear that respondents 1-3 had purchased
three plots of land from Usmanshahi Mills ":hich was under liquidation
through the Official Liquidator on June 17, 1968. But the mutation of their
G names in the revenue records was not effected. In consequence, notices
could not be issued. They, in turn, sold these plots to 4th respondent in
1973. A writ petition was filed on December 19, 1974 challenging the
validity of the notification and also the award. The High Court set aside
the notification on th~ ground that notices as required under law have not
H been served on respondents 1-3.
-
STATE v. U. RAJABHAU
41
It is seen that section 4(1) does not require the service of the A
personal notice nor the one under section 6 declaration. What is needed
to be served in the locality and the Gazette which have been complied with.
As regards the notices under section 9 is concerned, it now transpires from
the revenue records that the original owner namely Uscianshahi Mill was
served. Since mutation had not been effected in the name of respondents
1-3 though purchased prior to the publication of notification under section
4(1), they could not be issued notices as required under Section 9. Notice
to the 4th respondent is obviously impossible, since the award has already
been made on September 15, 1971. His purchase thereafter is obviously
illegal as it does not bind the State after the notification under section 4(1)
was published. Under these circumstances, the High Court was wholly
unjustified in quashing acquisition in respect of three plots of land of
respondents 1-3.
It is brought to our notice that after the notification was quashed by
c
the High Court, no further steps were taken by the government. It is not
necessary since it is being challenged in the appeal in respect of these three D
plots. A submission was made that the Corporation does not need these
three plots of lands for the employees. So long as there is no notification
published under section 48(1) of the Act withdrawing from the acquisition,
the Court cannot take notice of any subsequent disinclination on the part
of the beneficiary.
E
The appeal is allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. But, in
the circumstances, without costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.