Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

6221 of 1975

Advocates

P.Rama Rao

Judges

Mr. Justice Gangadharu Rao

Acts

section 4 (1) of the land acquisition act
clauses of section 4 (1) (are)
section 4 (1)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners, who describe themselves as poor harijans and owners of very small extents of land, challenged the acquisition by the Collector of a total of 3 acres 64 cents of their land. The acquisition was for the stated purpose of providing house sites to harijans. The writ petition attacked the acquisition on two primary grounds: (1) that lands in the same survey number had been acquired about 25 years earlier for the same purpose and possession had already been taken, and only now (due to village factions) the petitioners' lands were being acquired; and (2) that acquisition proposals did not comply with a district collector's circular dated 20 April 1974 (administrative guidelines) — particularly clause 10 concerning whether the landowner's means of livelihood would be affected.

In addition, the petitioners alleged that no notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette and that the substance of any such notification was not published in the locality. The respondents averred that a notification under section 4(1) was published in the Krishna District Gazette dated 17 December 1975 and that the substance of the notification was published in the village by affixture at the site and by beat of 'tom-tom' on 20 December 1975.

The petition was heard and disposed of by the court; the writ petition was dismissed without costs and an advocate's fee of Rs. 150.00 was awarded.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the acquisition is invalid because other lands in the same survey number had previously been acquired about 25 years earlier and, on account of village factions, the petitioners' lands were targeted now.
Whether failure to comply with the district collector's circular dated 20 April 1974 — an administrative guideline (particularly clause 10 regarding impact on means of livelihood) — invalidates the acquisition.
Whether the requirements of section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act — publication of a notification in the official gazette and the collector causing public notice of the substance of that notification to be given in the locality — must be done simultaneously, and if not done within a short interval, whether the acquisition is void.
Whether the collector must personally publish the substance of the notification in the locality (i.e., whether he can delegate the act of publishing to village officers or other subordinates).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The acquisition is improper because lands in the same survey number had been acquired about 25 years earlier for the same purpose; now the petitioners' lands are being acquired (alleged targeting due to village factions).
The acquisition proposals did not comply with the district collector's circular dated 20 April 1974, particularly clause 10 concerning whether the landowner's means of livelihood would be affected; non-compliance with the circular should invalidate the acquisition.
No valid notification under section 4(1) was published in the gazette, and the substance of the notification was not published in the locality simultaneously with the gazette publication (or immediately thereafter), rendering the proceedings void.
The collector cannot delegate the duty of publishing the substance of the notification in the locality to village officers; the collector himself must perform the publication.

Respondents' Arguments

In the counter affidavit it is not specifically denied that earlier acquisition had been made in the same survey number; respondents say no suitable government land was available near the existing harijan cheri to provide house sites, implying the acquisition of petitioners' land was necessary.
The district collector's circular is an administrative guideline without statutory force; contravention of the circular does not invalidate acquisition proceedings.
The notification under section 4(1) was published in the Krishna District Gazette dated 17 December 1975, and the substance of that notification was published in the village by affixture at the site and by beat of 'tom-tom' on 20 December 1975 (three days later).
The decision to dispense with the provisions of section 5-A was taken by the government on 17 December 1975; urgency is to be assessed as of that date.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Narinderjit Singh v. State of U.P. (Supreme Court)	Held that both parts of section 4(1) — publication in the official gazette and public notice in the locality — must be complied with; language in that decision was read as saying both things have to be "simultaneously done" under section 4(1).	The court noted the Supreme Court's emphasis but declined to construe it as an absolute rule mandating literal simultaneity in all cases. The court treated Narinderjit Singh as authority for the mandatory nature of both requisites but distinguished its strict simultaneity in light of practical impossibility and context.
State of Mysore v. Abdulrazak Sahib (Supreme Court)	Affirmed that publication in the official gazette and publication of notice in the locality are mandatory; observed that "it is only when the notification is published in the official gazette and it is accompanied by or immediately followed by the public notice" that a person can be regarded as having had notice.	The court relied on this decision to show that where section 5-A is not dispensed with, the public notice must accompany or immediately follow the gazette publication. The court distinguished the present facts (where section 5-A had been dispensed with) and held that a three-day delay here was not fatal.
Gangadaraiah v. State of Mysore (Mysore High Court)	Referenced by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Abdulrazak Sahib; forms part of the reasoning that immediate local notice is required where section 5-A applies.	The opinion referred to the Mysore High Court decision as part of the authority supporting the "accompanied by or immediately followed" formulation; the present court used that lineage to explain differing requirements when section 5-A is or is not dispensed with.
Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (Supreme Court)	Addressed the question of urgency and the power to dispense with provisions of section 5-A where urgency is found to exist.	The court cited Jage Ram as authority supporting the proposition that urgency must be assessed on the date when the provisions of section 5-A are dispensed with; historical pendency does not preclude a later finding of urgency.
Kasireddi Papaiah v. State	Also cited concerning the question of dispensing with section 5-A and the assessment of urgency.	The court relied upon this authority (along with Jage Ram) to support its view that the government may lawfully dispense with section 5-A if it considers there is urgency on the date of dispensing.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through a sequential legal analysis based strictly on the material in the opinion:

Nature of the circular dated 20 April 1974: The court held that the circular was not issued under the Land Acquisition Act and therefore had no statutory force. It was characterized as administrative instructions to guide officers when making proposals. Consequently, contravention of the circular's provisions does not render acquisition proceedings void. The petitioners' contention relying on non-compliance with that circular was negatived.
Interpretation of section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act: The court quoted section 4(1), identified its two parts — (a) publication of notification in the official gazette by the appropriate government, and (b) the collector causing public notice of the substance of that notification at convenient places in the locality — and held both requisites are mandatory.
Simultaneity and timing: The court analyzed whether the two steps must be done "simultaneously." It observed that the text of the section does not require simultaneity and that practical considerations make absolute simultaneity nearly impossible because the gazette publication must precede local notice. The court concluded that local publication "follows" the gazette publication and must be within a reasonable time; what is reasonable depends on the facts of each case.
Effect of dispensing with section 5-A: The court distinguished cases where section 5-A (which gives a statutory opportunity to file objections within 30 days after the gazette notification) is not dispensed with from those where it is dispensed with. If section 5-A is not dispensed with, local publication must accompany or immediately follow gazette notification so that interested persons can file objections within the statutory 30-day period. If section 5-A is dispensed with, the necessity for immediate local publication is less pressing; delay must be assessed for prejudice on the facts.
Precedent application: The court treated Narinderjit Singh and State of Mysore v. Abdulrazak Sahib as authorities affirming the mandatory nature of both parts of section 4(1) but distinguished their language on simultaneity. Specifically, while the Supreme Court in Narinderjit Singh had used language suggesting simultaneity, the present court refused to treat that language as an absolute rule in circumstances where literal simultaneity is impossible. In the State of Mysore decision, the "accompanied by or immediately followed" language was applied where section 5-A was not dispensed with; the present court held that such a rule did not automatically control cases where section 5-A had been dispensed with.
Application to the facts: The record showed the gazette publication on 17 December 1975 and local publication by affixture and tom-tom on 20 December 1975 (three days later). The court found that the three-day delay was not fatal in this case and did not vitiate the proceedings, particularly because the provisions of section 5-A had been dispensed with and there was no demonstrated prejudice arising from the three-day interval.
Urgency and timing of dispensing with section 5-A: The petitioners argued there was no urgency because draft proposals had been pending since 1971 and returned for re-examination. The court rejected that argument, explaining urgency must be judged on the date when section 5-A was dispensed with (17 December 1975). The court relied on previous authorities (including Jage Ram and Kasireddi Papaiah) and its own earlier decision to support this approach.
Delegation of the collector's duty to cause local notice: The court addressed the contention that the collector could not delegate the duty to publish the substance of the notification to village officers. The court held that the collector "shall cause public notice" to be given, and this authorizes him to have the notice published through subordinates; village officers may give the public notice of the substance in the locality.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Writ petition dismissed.

Direct consequences and implications:

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the acquisition; the dismissal was made without costs.
An advocate's fee of Rs. 150.00 was awarded.
The court held that administrative circulars not issued under the Land Acquisition Act have no statutory force and contravention of such circulars does not automatically render acquisition proceedings void.
The court reaffirmed that both limbs of section 4(1) are mandatory (gazette publication and local notice), but it clarified that literal simultaneity is not required; local publication must follow as soon as reasonably practicable and any delay must be assessed for prejudice on the facts. Where section 5-A is not dispensed with, immediate local notice is necessary to protect the statutory objection period; where section 5-A is dispensed with, the court will consider the delay and any prejudice caused.
The court held that the collector may cause the notice to be published through subordinates (including village officers); the duty is to cause publication, not necessarily to effect personal publication.
No new binding precedent was declared by this opinion; the court applied and distinguished existing authorities to the facts before it. (The opinion relied on and interpreted existing case law but did not state that it established a new legal principle beyond its factual application.)

Disposition: Writ petition dismissed, without costs; advocate's fee Rs. 150.00.

Show full summary ...

Tandit Vanamulu v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

(1) The petitioners in this writ petition question the acquisition of their lands by the government for providing house sites to harijans. The petitioners claim to be poor harijans. They own very small extents of land. The total extent of 3 acres 64 cents belonging to them has been acquired by the collector for providing house sites to the harijans;

(2) The acquisition is questioned on the following two grounds: first, about 25 years back some other lands in the same survey number for the same purpose were acquired and possession of those lands was also taken. But due to factions in the village the lands of the petitioners are now acquired. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, this allegation is not specifically denied but it is stated that no suitable government land is available for provision of house sites to the harijans in the vicinity of the exist'ng harijan cheri. Inaway this is a question of fact and even if this allegation is true, it will not invalidate the acquisition. Secondly it is submitted that the acquisition proceedings have been taken with out complying with the provis'ons of the circular dated 20th april, 1974 issued by the district collector. It says that certain information and documents should be sent by the block development officers, while sending proposals for acquisition. Particular referenceis drawn to clause 10 of the circular which reads: "whether the means of livelihood of the land owner will be affected if the land is acquired. "

(3) The circular is not issued under the provision of the land acquisition act. It has no statutory force. It only embodies some administrative instructions for the guidance of the officers while making proposals for acquisition of land for providing house sites to harijans. Therefore, the fact that some of the provisions of the circular are contravened, does not mean that the acquisition proceedings become void. So this contention is negatived.

(4) In the writ petition it is stated that no notification under section 4 (1) of the land acquisition act was published in the gazette much less the substance of the notification was published in the locality. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the notification was published in the krishna district gazette dated 17th december, 1975 and the substance of that notification was published in the village by affixture at the site and by beat of,'torn - tom' on 20th december, 1975.

(5) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners thatsince the substance of the notification was not given in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the notification in the gazette or immediately thereafter, the proceedings are void. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to refer to section 4 (1) of the land acquisition act. It reads as follows:

"when 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 giver at convenient places in the said locality."

(6) This sub - section consists of two parts. Under the 1st part the government shall publish a notification in the official gazette. Under the second part the collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. It is not disputed that both these requisites i. E. , publication of the notification in the official gazette and giving the substance of such notification in the locality, are mandatory.

(7) The next question is whether both should be done simultaneously. The section does not say so. Apart from that, it is well nigh impossible. The government should first publish the notification in the official gazette. It is only thereafter, the collector, can cause public notice of the substance of such notification in the locality. Both cannot be done simultaneously. So i am of the opinion that the publicatin of the substance of such notification in the locality only follows the publication of the notification in the official gazette. The next question is as to when the substance of such notification should be published in the locality. The section does not prescribe any time - limit. If so, it should be normally understood, that it should be published in the locality, within a reasonable time. As to what is a reasonable time, depends on the facts of each case.

(8) If in a case, the provisions of section 5 - a are not dispensed with, then under that section a person has to submit his objections within 30 days after the issue of the notification in the gazette. Therefore, the substance of that notification must be published in the locality. Otherwise the party interested in submitting his objections will lose valuable time. If the provisions of section 5 - a are dispensed with, then the question of filing objections within 30 days after the issue of the notification as contemplated by that section, does not arise. Then, even if there is some delay it does not matter. Nevertheless, the requirements of both the clauses of section 4 (1) (are) to be complied with. In fact, that is what is held by the supreme court in narindrajit singh v. State of u. P. Therefore, whether the provisions of section 5 - a are dispensed with or not, makes no difference. Under section 4 (1) the notification should be published in the gazette and thereafter publicnotice of the substance of the notification should also be given in the locality,

(9) Relying upon certain observations in narinderjit singh v. State of uttar pradesh, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the substance of the notification in the locality should be published simultaneously with the publication of the notification in the official gazette. That was a case where a notification was published in the official gazette but the substance of the notification was not given in the locality. The provisions of section 5 - a were also dispensed with in that case under section 17 (4) of the land acquisition act. It was argued in that case that since section 5 - a was dispensed with, the second part of section 4 (1) was not mandatory. The supreme court held, while considering that question that :

"theprovisions of section 4 (1) cannot be held to be mandatory in one situation and directory in another. section 4 (1) does not contemplate any distinction between those proceedings in which in exercise of the power under section 17 (4) the appropriate government directs that the provisions of section 5 - a shall not apply and where such a direction has not been made dispensing with the applicability cf section 5 - a. It lays down in unequivocal and clear terms that the both the things have to be simulatneously done under section 4 (1) i. E. A notification has to be published in the official gazette that the land is likely to be needed for any public purpose and the collector has to cause notice to be given of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality in which the land is situated."

(10) Strong emphasis is laid on the words " that both things have to be simultaneously done under section 4 (1). " on the facts of that case and in the context in which that expression is used. I am not prepared to hold that the supreme court had meant to lay down as an absolute rule that both the publications should be made simultaneously in all cases. In the nature of things, it is absolutely impossible to do both the things simultaneously.

(11) Reliance is also placed on state of mysore v. Abdulrazak sahib. That was a case where under section 4 (1) , notification was published in the official gazette on 17th august, 1961 and the rotice in the locality was giver on 1st and 9th november, 1961. Section 5 - a was not dispensed with in that case. The supreme court held that both the conditions of section 4 (1) i. E. Publication of the notification in the official gazette and publication of the notice in the locality are mandatory. After referring to the decision of the mysore high court in gangadaraiah v. State of mysore, it was further observed by the supreme court as follows :

" it is only when the notification is published in the official gazette and it is accompanied by or immediately followed by the public notice that a person interested in the property proposed to be acquired can be regarded to have had notice of the proposed acquisition."

(12) Strong reliance is placed upon the words "accompanied by or immediately followed" in this decision and it is submitted that the substance of the notification should have been given immediately and the delay of 3 days in this case is fatal. I do not agree. That is a case where the provisions of section 5 - a were not dispensed with. Therefore, the supreme court has rightly held that the notification published in the official gazette should be accompanied by or immediately followed by the public notice in the locality. That decision is not an authority for the proposition, that even in a case where the provisions of section 5 - a are dispensed with public notice in the locality should be accompanied or immediately followed by a notification in the official gazette. But it does not mean that in a case where the provisions of section 5 - a are dispensed with the public notice in the locality could be given whenever the colletor pleases. It should be given as early possible after the notification is published in the official gazette. Whether the delay in such cases is fatal and whether it has caused any prejudice to the party, has to be decided on the facts of each case. In this case i am of the opinion that the delay of three days is not fatal and does not vitiate the proceedings.

(13) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the draft notification and draft declaration proposals in the case were submitted to the government in 1971 for approval, but the government returned the proposals for re - examination in the light of the guidelinesissued by the government consequent on passing of the land ceiling act. Thereafter, there was a further enquiry into the matter ard a notification under section 4 (1) was published on 17th december, 1975. Basing on these averments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was really no urgency to dispence with the provisions of section 5 - a in this case. I do not agree. What the court has to consider is whether there was urgency or not on the date when the provisions cf section 5 - a were dispensed with. The fact that the matter was pending from 1972 would not make any difference if on 17th december, 1975 the government felt that there was urgency and dispensed with the provisions of section 5 - a of the act. That is also the view taken by this court in writ appeal no. 370 of 1976, dated 20th september, 1976 relying on the decision of the supreme court in jage ram v. State of haryana and also in kasireddi papaiah v. State.

(14) Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the substance of the notification was published in the locality by the village officers, but it is the collector that should publish the substance of the notification and he cannot delegate that power under the act to the village officials. The second part of section 4 (1) says that the collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. Therefore he himself does not publish the notification. He will only cause it to be published through his subordinates. It does not also mean that he should summarise the substance of the notification and communicate to the village officers to publish it in the village. Therefore, the village officers concerned can certainly give public notice of the substance of that notification in the locality.

(15) In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs. Advocates fee rs. 150. 00. Writ petition dismissed.

Tandit Vanamulu v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Tandit Vanamulu v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

Comments