Holding

Under the Uttar Pradesh amendment, the requirement of local newspaper publication under Section 4(1) is dispensed with when Section 5‑A is waived under Section 17(4), and the notification and declaration may be published simultaneously; therefore the acquisition is valid.

Summary

The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) acquired land by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 25‑02‑1986 and a declaration under Section 6 on 26‑02‑1986, both of which were published together on 10‑04‑1986. The respondents challenged the acquisition, arguing that the notification was invalid because it was not published in two local newspapers as required by Section 4(1) and that the power under Section 17(4) was wrongly invoked. The Allahabad High Court accepted these arguments and quashed the notification and declaration. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the Uttar Pradesh amendment to Section 4(1) which dispenses with local newspaper publication when the enquiry under Section 5‑A is waived under Section 17(4), and the 1990 proviso to Section 17(4) allowing simultaneous publication of the notification and declaration. The Court held that the amendment rendered the High Court’s reasoning untenable, the notification was not vitiated, and the acquisition was valid. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to publish the Section 4(1) notification in local newspapers invalidates the acquisition when the enquiry under Section 5‑A is dispensed with under Section 17(4) as per the Uttar Pradesh amendment.
Whether the proviso inserted by the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act of 1990 permits simultaneous publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6.
Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the notification and declaration.

Legislation cited

Amendment Act 68 of 1984
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 17(4), s. 4(1), s. 5-A, s. 6, s. 9

Subjects

land acquisitionnotificationlocal publicationSection 17(4)Uttar Pradesh amendmentdeclarationpossessionwrit petition

Judgment

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A
v.
JAN KALYAN SAMIT!, SHEOPURI, GHAZIABAD AND ANR.

JANUARY 9, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Sections 4( 1}, 5-A, 6, 17( 4 )--Publication of notification in the
localil)~Dispensed with by amendment made by U.P. State-Hence notifica-
tion under s.4(1) not vitiated for non-publication of the notification--lssue ~f c
noqfication under S.4( 1) and declaration under S.6--(;ould be simultaneously
published by operation of the proviso to S.17( 4) as amended by the U.P.
Amendment Act, 1990.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2099 of 1996.
D
From the Judgement and Order dated 3.11.89 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 7155 of 1986.

O.P. Rana, R.B. Misra and Raju Rarnachandran for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : E

- Leave granted.

Though notice has been served on the contesting respondents, they
have not appeared either in person or through counsel.
F
We have heard Shri O.P. Rana, learned senior counsel for the peti-
tioner. The acquisition of the land by the Ghaziabad Development Authority
was initiated by notification of February 25, 1986, under Section 4 (1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'); enquiry under Section 5A
was dispensed with under Section 17(4) of the Act and the Declaration under
Section 6 was made on February 26, 1986. Both the notifications and G
declaration were simultaneously published on April I 0, 1986. The respondents
-~ 1 and 2 have filed writ petition No. 7155/86 in the High Court of Allahabad
challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) on the ground
that local publication as required under Section 4(1) was not made. The
exercise of the power under Section 17(4) was also wrongly invoked, as
simultaneously notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section H
307
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A 6 could not be published. The High Court accepted .the contentions and by
impugned order dated November 3, 1987, allowed the writ petition and
quashed the notification of Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6.
Thus this appeal by special leave.

Section 4(1) of the Act envisages that whenever it appears to the
B appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be
needed for any public purpose or for a company a notification to that effect
shall be published in the official Gazette and in two daily newspapers
circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional
language. This was added by Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Earlier thereto
under the local amendment of U.P., publication in one newspaper was
C sufficient. The Collector is required to cause public notice of the substance of
-such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. The State
of UP made amendment to Section 4 by UP Land Acquisition VIII of 1974/
XXII of 1954, whereunder between the words "and" and the word "Collector"
the following shall be inserted and be deemed always to have been inserted.
The proviso thereto was added as under :
D
"Except in the case of any land to which by virtue of a direction of <
the State Government under sub section 4 of Section 17 the provision ,
of Section 5 A shall not apply".

In other words, the-mandatory requirement of the publication of the notifica-
tion in the locality was dispensed with in a case where the Government had
E
opined that the land was urgently needed, under Section 17(4). When the

F
authorities have dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A, the requirement
of local publication shall not apply. Consequently, the finding of the High
Court in unsustainable. It is rather unfortunate that this amendment was not
brought to the notice of the High Court when the writ petition was allowed.
But operation of the statutory local amendment to the Act has dispensed with
-
local publication in two newspapers. The notification under Section 4(1) is not
vitiated for non-publication of the notification in the local newspapers.

The next question is whether Section 17(4) applies and the action taken
was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. It is seen that but for local
amendment, on publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and exercis-
G
ing of the power under Section 17(4), the publication of the declaration under
Section 6 is mandatory pre-condition for taking possession of the land. Even
on publication of declaration under Section 6, notice under Section 9 is
necessary to the owner or person interested in the land and on expiry of 15
days from the date of the notice under Section 9 the Government is entitled
H to take possession of the land. By operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 17
G.D.A. v. JAN KALYAN SAMITI 309
though award has not been made under Section 11 the land stands vested in A
the Government, free from all encumbrances. In the State of UP an
amendment has been made by UP Amendment Act repeal 32 of 1990 and
,. ~
' the Land Acquisition (Validation) Act 1991, (UP Act 5 of 1991), which had
come into force w.e.f. September 24, 1984, envisaging insertion of a proviso
to sub-section (4) of Section 17 which reads thus :
B
"In Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in its
application to Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act, in sub-
section (4) the following proviso shall be inserted at the end and shall be
deemed to have been inserted on September 24, 1984, namely, Provided that
where in the case of any land, notification under Section 4 sub-section (I) has
been published in the Official Gazette on or after September 24, 1984 but c
before January II, 1989 and the appropriate Government has under this sub-
section directed that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply, a declaration
under Section 6 in respect of the land may be made either simultaneously with
or at any time after the publication in the Official Gazette of the notification
under Section 4, sub-section (!)," D
•
In other words by operation of the proviso to Section 17(4) in relation
to its application to the State of UP, Notification under Section 4(1) and the
declaration under Section 6 would simultaneously be published. The appro-
priate Authority is empowered to issue notice under Section 9 and take
possession on expiry of 15 days. The High Court, therefore, was not correct E
in its conclusion that the Government would not have published simultane-
ously the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6
and immediately taken possession of the land in question.

In that view of the matter, the decision of the High Court in the
impugned judgment is clearly illegal. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but F
in the circumstances without costs.

G.N Appeal allowed

......