MOHAMMAD KHAJA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a matter that arises under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The short question is whether the substance of the Gazette notification mandated to be published locally under Section 4(1) of the Act can permissibly be published subsequent to the Gazette notification.

(2.) The petitioners, about ten in number, challenged in this writ petition the proposed acquisition of their house-plots situate in Ranga Reddy District. These lands were sought to be acquired by the Railways for a public purpose of laying a railway-line from Sanatnagar to Moulali by passing Secunderabad Railway Station. For that purpose, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had published, as required to be done under Section 4 (1) of the Act, a statutory notification in Part I of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 14-12-78. Acting in further compliance of the latter part of Section 4 (I) of the Act, the local publication of that Gazette notification was made on 7-6-79. Is the local publication in compliance with the second part of Section 4 (1) of the Act ?. Section 4 (1) of the Act reads thus : ''Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient place in the said locality." Although armies of words have marched upon this section, peace has not yet smiled on this poor section. A strange fatality has dogged the true meaning of this section. To this day, its exact scope is eluding the firm grasp of judicial pronouncements.

(3.) No less a Judge than Krishna Iyer J., whose judicial concern for the poor, weak and the wretched is well-known described in his Supreme Court pronouncements the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 as an Act depriving the rights of the land-owners. That description in law of interpretation calls for strict interpretation. Krishna Iyer J , had therefore, called following Maxwell for strict interpretation of its provisions. Now a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Somavanth vs. State of Punjab ruled that full compliance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) of the Act is the first step the State should take for the exercise of its power of eminent domain under the Act. The Supreme Court, consequently held that wherever that step had not been taken by the State as required by the Act, the acquisition proceedings should fail in their entirety. Any failure to publish the Gazette notification would, according to this view amount to a non-compliance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act and would vitiate the entire land acquisition proceedings. According to the same view, the Supreme Court also ruled that the same legal consequences would flow from any act of total failure of the State to publish the substsnce of the Gazette notification in the locality. These propositions of law are wellsettled and are well accepted. I have not come across any responsible difference of opinion on the above propositions of law.