Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusUMASHANKAR RAJABHAU AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 708
- Decided
- 9 November 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Section 4(1) requires only publication in the locality and Gazette; personal notice is not mandatory, and the acquisition remains valid despite the lack of Section 9 notices.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra sought to acquire about five acres of land for staff quarters, publishing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 11 September 1970, a declaration under Section 6 on 29 July 1971 and making the award on 15 September 1971. Before the notification, respondents 1‑3 had bought three plots from the original owner in June 1968, but the mutation of title was never effected, so notices required under Section 9 could not be served; they later sold the plots to respondent 4 in 1973. The Bombay High Court quashed the acquisition of those three plots on the ground that the statutory notices had not been issued. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Section 4(1) does not mandate personal service of notice, only publication in the locality and the Gazette, and that the lack of mutation precluded issuance of Section 9 notices, which does not invalidate the acquisition. It further ruled that a purchase after the notification cannot bind the State and that, absent a withdrawal notice under Section 48(1), the court cannot consider any later change of intention. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the writ petition dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act requires personal service of notice to landowners.
- Whether failure to serve notices under Section 9 due to lack of mutation invalidates the acquisition.
- Whether a purchase of land after the publication of a Section 4(1) notification binds the State.
- Whether the court can take note of a beneficiary’s subsequent disinclination without a Section 48(1) withdrawal notice.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1), s. 48(1), s. 6, s. 9
Subjects
Land acquisitionSection 4(1) notificationSection 6 declarationSection 9 noticeSection 48(1) withdrawalMutation of titleAcquisition awardSupreme Court of India
Judgment
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 pur- C
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( IHfeld 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
E
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 muta-
tion 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 F
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
G
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
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 re-
quired under section 9. Notice to the 4th respondent is obviously impos-
sible, since the award had 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 p_ublished. Therefore, the High
Court was wholly unjustified in quashing acquisition in respect of three .
B 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]
c 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.
D
S.M. Jadhav for the Appellants.
V.B. Joshi for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E
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 c
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
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.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search