RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged notifications dated 4.8.1988 published in the Gazette of M.P. on 26.8.1988 u/s. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is undisputed that both the notifications were simultaneously published. In State of U.P. v. Radheyshyam (AIR 1989 SC 682), it has been held that declaration u/s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be issued simultaneously with notification u/s. 4 on the same date. The declaration u/s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present case cannot, therefore, be sustained. It deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed.

(2.) SO far as the relief to be granted in the case is concerned, it was pointed out to us that in similar situation the Supreme Court has directed in some cases that the notification u/s. 4 of the Act may be deemed to have been issued on a particular date to enable the respondent to issue a fresh declaration u/s. 6 of the Act within the time limit provided for it. We do not deem it proper to do so in this case as the respondents could have expeditiously moved this Court conceding the invalidity of the declaration. A couple of years' time could have been saved by the respondents themselves by conceding before this Court the obvious illegality of the action taken and praying for quick disposal of the case fixing a fresh date of notification u/s. 4 of the Act. If the Public Authorities for whom the land is acquired do not take care to comply with law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not for this Court to come to their rescue going out of way to fix a putative date of notification u/s. 4 or 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The declaration u/s. 6 of the Act is quashed. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to take such action as they can take under the law. Parties to bear their own costs. Security cost be refunded to the petitioner. AIR 1989 SC 682 followed.