JAYARAMA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST and second petitioners (two brothers), third petitioner (son of the first petitioner) and 4th and 5th (minor daughters of the first petitioner) have filed the instant petition praying to quash the proceedings for acquisition of lands to provide house sites to Adi Dravidas of Irumbai village in South Arcot District. They have stated that their lands in R.S.Nos.64/3B and 64/4B in Irumbai village have been notified in G.O.Ms.No.2556, Social Welfare, dated 13.10.1983 and published in Part 3, Sec.2 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 9.11.1983. In the said notification, Government only mentioned names of the first petitioner and third petitioner, that the names of the other petitioners have been omitted and not mentioned and, ?There was no proper publication of Sec.4 notification in the village or in the vicinity of lands sought to be acquired. There was no issue of notice under Rule 38 of the Land Acquisition Rules framed under Land Acquisition Act to the Social Welfare Department at the time of Sec.5-A enquiry. In the issue of Sec.5-A notice, the name of Sundaramoorthy has been omitted and it is incumbent upon the Tahsildar and it is statutory obligation cast on him under Sec.5-A of Land Acquisition Act, to issue notice on each and every person interested in the lands and invite their objections and the failure or omission to do renders Sec.6 notification invalid and void ab initio.?

(2.) THERE are several other facts stated in the affidavit, since, however, learned counsel for the petitioners has attached the acquisition mainly on the ground of (1) non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of the publication of the substance of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for short ?the Act? at convenient places in the locality and (2) non-compliance of the requirement of Rule 38 of the Rules framed under the Act upon the third petitioner, I have not referred to other facts.

(3.) COURTS have held that the requirements of simultaneous publication of the notification in the Official Gazette as well as public notice of substance of such notifciation are the essential elements of Sec.4(1) and explained that simultaneous publication does not mean publication at the same timebut also not at such distance of time that the very purpose of the public notice is defeated. For, unless full notice of the intention to acquire the land is given to the person interested in the land he is likely to suffer and could not in the case of ordinary acquisition file his objections within the prescribed period of limitation under Sec.5-A of the Act and in the case of acquisition after invoking the urgency clause the opportunity to make representations to persons concerned. The principle in this behalf has been fully stated in the judgments of the Supreme Court including in the case of Deepak Patwa v. Lt.Govemor of Delhi Deepak Patwa v. Lt.Govemor of Delhi Deepak Patwa v. Lt.Govemor of Delhi (1984)4 S.C.C. 308: A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1721 in these words: ?It may be noticed at once that Sec.4(l) 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 Sec.4(1) before proceeding to take the next step of entering upon the land under Sec.4(2). The time factor is not a vital element of Sec.4(1) and there is no warrant for reading the words ?simultaneously? or ?immediately thereafter? into Sec.4(1). "Publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are the essential elements of Sec.4(1) and not the simultaneity or immediacy of the publication and the public notice. But since the steps contemplated by Sec.4(1) cannot be undertaken unless publication is made and public notice given as contemplated by Sec.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 Sec.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 facieconclusion of lack of bona fidesin 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.? ?We may consider here an argument which is usually advanced against any time gap between the publication in the Official Gazette and the public notice in the locality. Sec.5-A provides that any person interested in the land which has been notified under Sec.4(l) may object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality within 30 days after the issue of the notification. It is, therefore, suggested that if the publication of the notification in the Gazette is not immediately followed by a public notice in the locality, it may lead to a denial to the person interested of an opportunity to object to the acquisition. We think, that this is too narrow an interpretation of Sec.5-A. Notice to interested persons of a proposed acquisition of land is given by publishing a notification to the effect that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose in two ways-first, by causing publication of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. There is no reason to confine the period of 30 days prescribed by Sec.5-A to one mode. The period of 30 days may be reckoned from either the date of publication in the Gazette or the date of the public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality, whichever is later. In our view, that is the only reasonable and practical way of construing Sec.5-A, so as to advance the object of the provision, which is to provide a reasonable opportunity to interested persons to oppose the acquisition. We particularly notice that Sec.5-A does not refer either to the date of public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality. It speaks of the issue of the notification. This we consider is significant and in the context, the words ?the issue of the notification? can only signify the completion of the prescribed process-rather the twin process that of notifying the interested public of the proposed acquisition in the manner provided for by Sec.4(l), that is by publication in the Official Gazette and giving public notice in the locality.? And when urgency clause under Sec.17(4) of the Act is invoked in these words: