MOHAMMAD SHAFT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, filed on 24 -8 -84, the petitioner seeks a writ for quashing the notification dated 12 -4 -84 issued under section 4 (1) and section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), published in the M.P. Gazettee dated 20 -4 -84 annexed as annexure -6 and a notification dated 16 -6 -84 (Annexure 7 -B) issued under section 6 of the Act published in the M.P. Gazette dated 27 -4 -84. On the ground that these notifications do not satisfy the requirements of the provisions of sections 4 and 17 of the Act and consequently, the entire acquisition proceedings are null and void.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his name has been mutated by the Revenue Authorities as Bhumiswami over the disputed land. Originally, the land belonged to one Ramtirth, who was the Bhumiswami of the land, who, before his death, executed a will in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the will, the Revenue authorities ordered mutation, though the right of mutation has been challenged by Kanchanbai, the widow of the deceased, and Ramgopal, the brother of the deceased Ramtirth. An appeal is pending in this behalf. To satisfy that he has got an interest in the disputed land the petitioner has annexed the copies of the khasra entries after the mutation, and the orders of the Revenue Courts. The land admeasuring 2.298 hectares is situated in Mandsaur, tahsil and district Mandsaur. This is also not in dispute that Mandsaur is now no more a small village but is a big city, divided into 35 municipal wards, having the population of more than 80,000 people and spread over an area of about 25 square kilometers. In the notification, the locality; was not described with precision. Therefore, the description of the locality as 'Mandsaur' was not sufficient to enable the petitioner to know as to whether the land, which is being required for acquisition, was the land belonging to the petitioner, or any other land. Hence the petitioner could not file any objection against the proposed acquisition. Thus the notification, which has not described the land with sufficient precision, is illegal and void; and as a consequence of that, all subsequent proceedings ere void.

(3.) THE petitioner also alleged that earlier to this, a notification under section 6 of the Act (Annexure 5 dated 22 -3 -84) was issued, which gave all particulars of the land and the locality but as no notification under section 4 of the Act was issued, the same was withdrawn by notification dated 16 -4 -84 (annexure 7 -A). The petitioner further alleged that section 4 of the Act requires that after a notification is published in the official gazette, the Collector shall cause a public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality concerned. But no such notice was published at convenient places in the locality concerned nor the copies of the notice were affixed in the office of the Collector and in the nearest police station. The requirement of section 4 of the Act is mandatory, which having not been complied with, all subsequent proceedings are illegal and void.