DEEPAK PAHWA Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are dismissing both the Special Leave Petitions. But we propose to give our reasons for doing so, which we do not generally do, as our attention has been invited to some judgments of High Courts which we consider have been wrongly decided, proceeding as they do on a misunderstanding of some observations of this Court. A combined notification under Sections 4 and 17 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published in the Delhi Extraordinary Gazette on 18-6-1994 in regard to the acquisition of certain lands in the village Bijwasan for the purpose of construction of a 'New Transmitting Station for the Delhi Airport'. Public Notice of the substance of the notification under Sec. 4 was alleged to have been given in the locality on 17-7-1994. It was also alleged that the matter was under correspondence between various departments of the Government, for nearly eight years before the notification and the declaration were published in the Gazette. A writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court impugning the notification and the declaration on two grounds. The first was that the delay of 29 days in giving public notice of the substance of notification in the locality after the publication of the notification under Section 4 in the Gazette was fatal to the notification itself. The second was that the very circumstance that a period of eight years was spent in inter-departmental discussion showed that there was no urgency necessitating the invocation of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine and the present special leave petitions are directed against such dismissal. The very two questions which were raised before the High Court were again urged before us and reliance was placed by Dr. L. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, on Narinderjit Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 552; Rattan Singh v. State, AIR 1976 Punj and Har 279 (FB); S. K. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1977 Delhi 209 (FB); Satish Kapur v. State of Haryana, AIR 1982 Punj and Har 276 and C. Suryanarayana v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 Andh Pra 17. In addition, we have also perused Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1704 State of Mysore v. Abdul Rajak, AIR 1973 SC 1-361; Mohammad Khaja v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1982 NOC 270 (Andh Pra) and Sanjivaiah Nagar Depressed and Backward Classes Sangh v. District Collector, Hyderabad, AIR 1983 Andh Pra 142.

(2.) Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows:

(3.) It may be noticed at once that S. 4 (1) does not prescribe that public notice of the substance of the notification should be given in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or immediately thereafter. Publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are two vital steps required to be taken under S. 4(1) before proceeding to take the next step of entering upon the land under S 4 (2). The time factor is not a vital element of Section 4 (1) and there is no warrant for reading the words 'simultaneous' or 'immediately thereafter' into Section 4 (1). 'Publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are essential elements of Section 4 (1) and not the simultaneity or immediacy of the publication and the public Notice. But since the steps contemplated by Section 4(2) cannot be undertaken unless publication is made and public notice given as contemplated by Section 4 (1), it is implicit that the publication and the public notice must be contemporaneous though not simultaneous or immediately after one another. Naturally contemporaneity may involve a gap of time and by the very nature of the things, the publication in the Official Gazette and the public notice in the locality must necessarily be separated by a gap of time. This does not mean that the publication and the public notice may be separated by a long interval of time. What is necessary, is that the continuity of action should not appear to be broken by a deep gap. If there is publication in the Gazette and if there is public notice in the locality, the requirements of Section 4 (1) must be held to be satisfied unless the two are unlinked from each other by a gap of time so large as may lead one to the prima facie conclusion of lack of bona fides in the proceedings for acquisition. If the notification and the public notice are separated by such a large gap of time it may become necessary to probe further to discover if there is any cause for the delay and if the delay has caused prejudice to anyone.