- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Maharashtra And Another v. Umashankar Rajabhau And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal by special leave arose from the judgment and order dated 18-7-1979 in Special Civil Application No. 92 of 1975 of the High Court of Bombay. The State issued a land acquisition notification under Section 4(1) for about 5 acres for a public purpose, namely, construction of staff quarters for Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation employees; it was published in the State Gazette on 17-9-1970. A declaration under Section 6 was published on 29-7-1971, and the award was made on 15-9-1971.
Respondents 1-3 had purchased three plots from Usmanshahi Mills (in liquidation through the Official Liquidator) on 17-6-1968, but their names were not mutated in the revenue records. As a result, notices could not be issued to them. They later sold the plots to the fourth respondent in 1973. A writ petition was filed on 19-12-1974 challenging the validity of the notification and the award. The High Court set aside the acquisition notification on the ground that notices required under law had not been served on Respondents 1-3.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the acquisition on the ground of non-service of notices on Respondents 1-3, particularly in light of the publication requirements under Section 4(1) and the notice regime under Section 9.
- Whether a subsequent purchaser (the fourth respondent) after publication of the Section 4(1) notification could claim that the acquisition/award did not bind the State, or could be protected by a requirement of notice.
- Whether the alleged subsequent disinclination of the beneficiary (the Corporation) to use the three plots could affect the acquisition in the absence of a withdrawal notification under Section 48(1).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that Section 4(1) does not require service of personal notice, and similarly no personal notice was required for the Section 6 declaration; what is required is publication in the locality and in the Gazette, which had been complied with. On the question of notice under Section 9, the Court noted that the revenue records showed service on the original owner (Usmanshahi Mill). Because mutation had not been effected in the names of Respondents 1-3, despite their purchase being prior to the Section 4(1) notification, notices under Section 9 could not be issued to them.
As to the fourth respondent, the Court reasoned that notice to him was “obviously impossible” because the award had already been made on 15-9-1971, while his purchase was in 1973. The Court further stated that his post-notification purchase was “obviously illegal” and did not bind the State after publication of the Section 4(1) notification. On this reasoning, the Court concluded that the High Court was wholly unjustified in quashing the acquisition in respect of the three plots belonging to Respondents 1-3.
The Court also addressed a submission that, after the High Court quashed the notification, the Government took no further steps and that the Corporation allegedly did not need the three plots for employees. The Court held that, so long as there was no notification under Section 48(1) withdrawing from acquisition, the Court could not take notice of any subsequent disinclination by the beneficiary.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition stood dismissed, without costs.
The direct effect was to restore/maintain the acquisition as against the challenge accepted by the High Court with respect to the three plots connected to Respondents 1-3. The Court also rejected reliance on the beneficiary’s alleged later lack of need in the absence of a formal withdrawal under Section 48(1). The opinion did not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond resolving the dispute on the statutory notice and publication requirements described.
Order
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 18-7-1979 made in Special Civil Application No. 92 of 1975 by the High Court of Bombay. Notification under Section 4(1) acquiring an extent of about 5 acres of land was published in the State Gazette on 17-9-1970 for public purpose, namely, construction of staff quarters for Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation employees. Declaration under Section 6 was published on 29-7-1971. The award also was made on 15-9-1971. It would appear that Respondents 1-3 had purchased three plots of land from Usmanshahi Mills which was under liquidation through the Official Liquidator on 17-6-1968. But the mutation of their names in the revenue records was not effected. In consequence, notices could not be issued. They, in turn, sold these plots to the fourth respondent in 1973. A writ petition was filed on 19-12-1974 challenging the validity of the notification and also the award. The High Court set aside the notification on the ground that notices as required under law have not been served on Respondents 1-3.
2. It is seen that Section 4(1) does not require the service of the personal notice nor the one under Section 6 declaration. What is needed to be served in the locality and the Gazette which have been complied with. As regards the notices under Section 9, it now transpires from the revenue records that the original owner namely, Usmanshahi Mill was served. Since mutation had not been effected in the name of Respondents 1-3 though purchased prior to the publication of notification under Section 4(1), they could not be issued notices as required under Section 9. Notice to the fourth respondent is obviously impossible, since the award has already been made on 15-9-1971. His purchase thereafter is obviously illegal as it does not bind the State after the notification under Section 4(1) was published. Under these circumstances, the High Court was wholly unjustified in quashing acquisition in respect of three plots of land of Respondents 1-3.
3. It is brought to our notice that after the notification was quashed by the High Court, no further steps were taken by the Government. It is not necessary since it is being challenged in the appeal in respect of these three plots. A submission was made that the Corporation does not need these three plots of lands for the employees. So long as there is no notification published under Section 48(1) of the Act withdrawing from the acquisition, the Court cannot take notice of any subsequent disinclination on the part of the beneficiary.
4. The appeal is allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs.
Alert