BHERU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions of law and facts are raised in this petition and batch of petitions shown in the Schedule annexed herewith and forms part of this order, they are decided by this common order.

(2.) THE facts no longer in dispute are that a notification dated 21.2.90 Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 4.6.92 for acquisition of land for Urban Improvement Trust (U.I.T.), Udaipur for the purpose of Udaipur - Bhuwana Extension Scheme. Preceding the Gazette notification, notification Under Section 4 was published on 31.3.90 is Rajasthan Patrika, Udaipur and on 1.4.90 in another news paper. The notification Under Section 4 was again published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 17.5.93 and on 19.5.93 in daily news paper Pratah Kal. The declaration Under Section 6 of the Act dated 17.5.94 was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 24.5.94 and further published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 9.10.94.

(3.) UNDER Section 4 of the Act whenever it appears to the appropriate Govt. that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published (i) in the Official Gazette, (ii) in two daily news papers having circulation in that locality on which at least one shall be in the regional language, (iii) or otherwise giving public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality. A bare perusal of Section 4(1) clearly shows that in order to comply with the statutory requirement set out therein, a notification stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose has to be published in Official Gazette. The second part of sub -section provides that the notification shall be published in two daily news papers having circulation in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and that the Collector has to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality in which land proposed to be acquired is situated. All the conditions are mandatory. As the notification Under Section 4(1) initiates proceedings for acquisition of land, the word 'shall' used in the section shall give expression to the mandate of the legislature for such publication, which is required for the legal commencement of the acquisition proceedings. In State of Harayana v. Raghubir Dayal (1995) 1 SCO 133, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the word 'shall' used in Section 4(1) should be construed to be mandatory because the requirement of Section 4(1) of the publication of the notification in the Gazette followed by their publication in the newspapers perhaps in some cases may not meet the needed purpose of notice to the owner or person claiming interest in the land proposed to be acquired and they would come to know only if the substance of the notification is published (announced) in the village by beat of drum. Therefore, publication of the substance of the notification of Section 4(1) in the locality is mandatory but it is not the requirement of the law that it be done simultaneously with the publication in the Gazette or newspapers.