M RAJAGOPAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitions, the petitioners challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of Additional buildings for Coimbatore Regulated Marketing committee.

(2.) THE Government passed G. O. Ms. No. 1665, Agricultural department, dated 14. 10. 1988 and issued the draft notification under Sec. 4 (l)of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and it was published in the Gazette on 2. 11. 1988. THE paper publication is the local dailies was on 27. 10. 1988 which was prior to Gazette publication. As enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act was held and the petitioners objected to the acquisition proceedings stating that they have purchased the lands for construction of houses and the Land Acquisition Officer sent a report to the Government recommending exclusion of the lands belonging to the petitioners and certain others to an extent of 1. 10 acres in Survey. Field No. 55/3. However, the government after calling for a report from the Special Commissioner overruled the objections and decided to proceed with the acquisition and issued a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act on 11. 11. 1989 and it was published in the gazette on the same date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before me.

(3.) BEFORE the amendment came into force, the Supreme court had an occasion to consider the gap of time between publication of notification and public notice of substance of the said notification, in Deepak pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 1721: (1984)4 S. C. C. 308, In that case, the Supreme Court had made observations to the effect that, 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 facie conclusion of lack of bona fides in the proceedings for acquisition. A reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court clearly shows that the publication under Sec. 4 (1) in the Gazette is a preliminary step. I do not think that the conclusion arrived at by the Allahabad High Court that only modes of publication are given in Sec. 4 (1) and there is no necessity to follow the modes given in the seriatim as given in the section, could be said to be correct. Though the modes are prescribed in Sec. 4 (1), after the amending Act, 1984, in my view, the publication has to be made first only in the Gazette and then only the other publications are to follow. It is settled law that where a power is given to do a certain thing, that thing must be done in that way or not at all and the other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. In my view, these principles would apply when the question is considered with regard to notification in a newspaper earlier than the publication is made in the gazette. As such, I am not able to accept the decision of the Allahabad High Court or the Andhra Pradesh High Court and I am of the view that the power given under Sec. 4 (l) has to be followed strictly by the State and the publication has to be made only in the seriatim as given in the section itself.