http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8

PETITIONER:

MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

MOHD. SHAFI AND ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/02/1992

BENCH:

ANAND, A.S. (J)

BENCH:

ANAND, A.S. (J)

KANIA, M.H. (CJ)

THOMMEN, T.K. (J)

CITATION:

1992 SCR (1) 657 1992 SCC (2) 168

JT 1992 (3) 523 1992 SCALE (1)322

ACT:

Land Acquistion Act, 1894:

Sections 4(1), 6(1) and 17(1)-Acquistion of Land-

Notification not disclosing with sufficient clarity details

of land and public purpose for which land was sought to be

acquired-Validity of.

HEADNOTE:

On a request from the Executive Engineer of the

petitioner Housing Board, the State Government issued a

notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Land

Acqui-sition Act and a declaration under Section 6 of the

Act for the acquisition of 2.298 hectares of land in the

village mentioned in the Schedule to the Notification under

Section 4(1), for the purpose of construction of buildings

and shops under self financing scheme.

The respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High

Court challenging the validity of the notification as also

the declaration, on various grounds, including that the

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was vague and

invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements

of the Act and that recourse to the urgency provisions under

Section 17(1) of the Act could not be had since the land was

not "waste or arable", which was sine qua non for exercising

powers under Section 17(1) of the Act.

Allowing the Writ Petition, the High Court quashed the

acquisition proceedings. Hence the appellant, the Madhya

Pradesh Housing Board filed Special Leave Petition before

this Court. On behalf of the appellant Board, it was

contended that since the acquisition of land had been made

at the request of the Housing Board of a large extent of

land, absence of providing detailed particulars of the land

or the locality where it was situate, could not vitiate the

notification, more so, when sufficient particulars had been

provided in the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the

Act wherein it had also been indicated that the site plan of

the land was available in the office of the Collector; that

the "public purpose"

658

mentioned in the schedule to the notification issued under

Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act, as also in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8

notificaiton issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, was

sufficiently clear and the finding of the High Court that

the notifications were vague on that account was incorrect

and that absence of a finalised housing scheme could not

vitiate the acquisition proceedings and that the High Court

was in error in holing that recourse could not be had to the

urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act.

Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, this Court

HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that the

notification in question was vitated on account of being

vague and for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

[667C]

2.1. The process of acquisition has to start with a

notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is

mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of

notification under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the

exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any

notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his

property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the

part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the

proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. [662H;

663A-B]

2.2. The object of issuing a notification under Section

4 of the Act is two-fold. First, it is a public

announcement by the Government and a public notice by the

Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein,

is needed or is likely to be needed by the Government for

the "public purpose" mentioned therein; and secondly, it

authorises the departmental officers or officers of the

local authority, as the case may be to do all such acts as

are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The notification

has to be published in the locality and particularly persons

likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on

notice that such an activity is afoot. The notification is,

thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the

"public purpose" for which the acquisition proceedings are

being commenced but also the "locality" where the land is

situate with as full a description as possible of the land

proposed to be acquired to enable the "interested" persons

to know as to which land is being acquired and for what

purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing

objections etc., since it is open to such persons to canvass

the non-

659

suitability of the land for the alleged "public purpose"

also. If a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is

defective and does not comply with the requirements of the

Act, it not only vitiates the notification, but also renders

all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition

bad.

[663B-E]

Narendrajit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.,

[1970] 3 SCR 278 and Munshi Singh & Others etc. etc. v.

Union of India etc. etc., [1973] 1 SCR 973, referred to.

2.3. In the instant case, the description of the land

in the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1), is

very cryptic. Not only no khasra numbers have been given,

even the precise "locality" has not been indicated. Mere

mention of the name of the village, which is spread over an

area of 25 sq. kms. and is divided into various municipal

wards, against the "locality" is wholly insufficient

description and the respondent or anyone else could not have

come to know from that description whether 2.298 hectares of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8

land which was required for acquistion included the land

belonging to him or not. The non-disclosure of the

"locality" with precision, invalidates the notification and

renders the publication of notice a meaningless formality.

[664C-D]

2.4. Apart from this, even the "public purpose" which

has been mentioned in the schedule to the notification as

"residential" is hopelessly vague and conveys no idea about

the purpose of acquisition rendering the notification as

invalid in law. There is no indication as to what type of

residential accommodation was proposed or for whom or any

other details. [665C-D]

2.5. The State cannot acquire the land of a citizen for

building some residence for another, unless the same is in

"public interest" or for the benefit of the "public" or an

identifiable section thereof. In the absence of the details

about the alleged "public purpose" for which the land was

sought to be acquired no one could comprehend as to why the

land was being acquired and therefore was prevented from

taking any further steps in the matter. [665D-E]

2.6. Besides, there is also non-application of mind by

the authorities concerned and rather casual manner in

dealing with the property of the citizen vitiating the

acquisition proceedings. Whereas the letter of the

660

Executive Engineer of the Housing Board to the Collector had

indicated that the Chairman of the Board had found the land

suitable for "construction of buildings and shops under the

self-financing scheme", the notification issued under

Section 4(1) makes no mention thereof and instead declares

the public purpose to be `residential. Again in the

declaration under Section 6(1) "public purpose" has been

stated to be "housing scheme of Housing Board" and not

"construction of buildings and shops under the self

financing scheme". Admittedly, apart from this letter there

was no other material with the State Government and,

therefore, it is not understandable on what material, did

the State Government state the "public purpose" in different

terms in the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6(1).

These factors go to expose non-application of mind by the

authorities while issuing the notification in question and

it appears that they were not even sure about the "public

purpose" for which the land was sought to be acquired.

[666F-H; 667A-B]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition

(C) No. 8788 of 1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.1989 of Madhya

Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 514 of 1984.

WITH

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2724 of 1992.

D.D. Thakur, S.K. Gambhir, V. Gambhir, Sakesh Kumar,

Rajinder Singhvi and Satish K. Agnihotri for the

Petitioners.

Shanti Bhushan, U.N. Bachawat, S. Atreya and Sushil

Kumar Jain for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. A.S. ANAND, J. On 12th of April, 1984, the

Collector Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, issued a Notification,

purporting to be under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1984 (hereinafter called the `Act') to the effect that

land detailed in the schedule attached thereto was required

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8

for a public purpose. The Notification further discloses

that the State Government being of the opinion that the

provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act were

applicable in respect of the land required to be

661

acquired, it dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5(A)

of the Act.

The schedule to the notification provided as follows:

SCHEDULE

Particulars of Land

------------------------------------------------------------------

Distt. | Tehsil | City/ | Approxi- | Authorised | Detail of

| | Village| mate area | Officer under| public

| | | in Hectares| Section 4(2) | purpose

--------|---------|--------|-----------|--------------|-----------

(1) | (2) |(3) | (4) | (5) | (6)

--------|---------|--------|-----------|--------------|-----------

Mandsaur| Mandsaur|Mandsaur| 2.298 | Executive | Residen-

| | | | Engineer M.P.| tial

| | | | Housing |

| | | | Construction |

| | | | Board, Ratlam|

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The aforesaid notification was followed by a

declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, issued on April

16, 1984. In the schedule to that declaration, Khasra

number of the proposed land with respective areas were

provided and in column (2) requiring the mention of "public

purpose" for which the land is required it was stated for

"housing scheme of Housing Board". In column (3), it was

stated that the plant of land may be inspected in the office

of the Collector".

The respondent, herein, filed a writ-Petition in the

High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging the validity of

the notification issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the

Act as also the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the

Act on various grounds. The main thrust of the challenge

was that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was

vague and invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory

requirements of the Act and that recourse to the urgency

provisions under Section 17(1) of the Act could not be had

since the land was not "waste or arable" which is the sine

qua non for exercising powers under Section 17(1) of the

Act. The challenge to the notifications succeeded and the

acquisition proceedings were quashed by the High Court by

the judgment impugned before us by the Madhya Pradesh Housing

Board through his Special Leave Petition.

Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the

special leave petition

662

are as follows:

The executive engineer of the Madhya Pradesh Housing

Construction Division on 3.9.1983 addressed a letter to the

Land Acquisition Officer, Madhya Pradesh Housing

Construction Board, Bhopal, stating therein that during the

tour of the Chairman of the Board, he had found private land

measuring 2.29 hectares situate near the bus stand in

Mandsaur city, to be "absolutely suitable for the

construction of buildings and shops under self financing

scheme" and requested that the said land be acquired on

priority basis. On receipt of this letter, the Land

Acquisition Officer, addressed a communication, on

15.2.1984, to the Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh,

Housing Department, with a request to forward the matter

along with his recommendation to the Collector, Ratlam for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8

favour of publication of a notification in the M.P. Gazette

for the acquisition of the said land under Sections 4(1) and

17 of the Land Acquisition Act". On April 12, 1984, the

Collector Mandsaur, M.P., issued the notification under

Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act and followed it by a

declaration under Section 6 of the Act on April 16, 1984.

Mr. D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for

the appellant assailed the findings of the High Court by

characterising the same as based on "hypertechnicalities".

Argued Mr. Thakur that since acquisition of land had been

made at the request of the Housing Board of a large extent

of land, the absence of providing detailed particulars of

the land or the locality where it was situate, could not

vitiate the notification, more so when sufficient

particulars had been provided in the notification issued

under section 6(1) of the Act wherein it had also been

indicated that the site plan of the land was available in

the office of the Collector.

It was also argued that the "public purpose" mentioned

in the schedule to the notification issued under Sections

4(1) and 17(1) of the Act, as also in the notification

issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, was sufficiently clear

and the finding of the High Court that the notifications

were vague on the account was incorrect. Mr. Thakur, further

submitted that the absence of a finalised housing scheme

could not vitiate the acquisition proceedings and that the

High Court fell in error in holding that recourse could not

be had to the urgency provisions under section 17 of the

Act.

It is settled law that the process of acquisition has

to start with a

663

notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is

mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of

notification under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the

exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any

notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his

property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the

part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the

proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. The object

of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act is two-

fold. First, it is a public announcement by the Government

and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the

land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be

needed by the Government for the "public purpose" mentioned

therein; and secondly, it authorises the departmental

officers or officers of the local authourity, as the case

may be to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2)

of the Act. The notification has to be published in the

locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by

the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity

is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with

sufficient clarity not only the "public purpose" for which

the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the

"locality" where the land is situate with as full a

description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired

to enable the "interested" persons to know as to which land

is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further

steps under the Act by filing objections etc., since it is

open to such persons to canvass the non-suitability of the

land for the alleged "public purpose" also. If a

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective and

does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it not

only vitiates the notification, but also renders all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8

subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, bad.

A reference to the Schedule appended to the Section

4(1) notification, in the instant case, shows that the only

description given about the particulars of 2.298 hectares of

the land proposed to be acquired is that the same is situate

in District Mandsaur, Tehsil Mandsaur, Village Mandsaur. In

column (6) the "public purpose" for which the land is

required is stated to be "residential"

In the schedule to the notification issued under

Section 6 of the Act, particulars of khasra number with the

extent of land in each khasra number have been provided.

The "public purpose" has been stated to be "for housing

scheme of housing board" and it is also stated against

column (3) that "the plan of the land may be inspected in

the office of the Collector".

664

Why these particulars were not given in the Section 4

notification has not been explained.

The High Court found that Mandsaur is no more a small

village but a big city, which is divided into 35 municipal

wards having a population of more than 80,000 people and is

spread over an area of 25 sq. kms. and the absence of the

details of the land or the locality where the same is

situate, vitiates the notification for non-compliance with

the provisions of the Act.

The description of the land in the notification issued

under Sections 4(1) and 17(1), in our opinion, is very

cryptic. Not only no khasra numbers have been given, even

the precise "locality" has not been indicated. Mere mention

of Mandsaur, which is spread over an area of 25 sq. kms. and

is divided into various municipal wards, against the

"locality" is wholly insufficient description and the

respondent or anyone else could not have come to know from

that description whether 2.298 hectares of land which was

required for acquisition included the land belonging to him

or not. The non-disclosure of the "locality" with

precision, invalidates the notification and renders the

publication of notice a meaningless formality.

In Narendrajit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.,

[1970] 3 SCR 278, while dealing with the requirements of a

valid notification under Section 4 of the Act, this Court

observed that the defect of non-mention of the locality

where the proposed land was situate in the notification was

a very serious defect vitiating the notification. In that

case, the schedule attached to the notification issued under

Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act read as follows:

"SCHEDULE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distt. | Pargana | Mauza | Approxi- | For what purpose | Remarks

| | | mate area| required |

-------|---------|-------|----------|---------------------------|---------

-

Rampur | Bilaspur| Gokal | 125 acres| For the rehabilitation of |

| | Nagari| | East Pakistan displaced |

| | | | families, under the |

| | | | Ministry of |

| | | | Rehabilitation, |

| | | | Government of India." |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Court opined that though Section 4(1) does not

require the

665

identity of the land which may ultimately be acquired to be

specified with too many details but it undoubtedly casts

upon the government a duty to "specify the locality in which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8

the land is needed". In Narendrajit Singh's case (supra),

this Court also repelled the argument identical to the one

raised by Mr. Thakur that since detailed particulars of the

land had been given in the notification issued under Section

6(1) of the Act, the absence of those particulars in Section

4(1) notification was of no consequence.

The Court said:

"In our view the defect in a notification under

s.4(1) cannot be cured by giving full particulars

in the notification under s.6(1)."

Apart from the defect in the impugned notification, as

noticed above, we find that even the "public purpose" which

has been mentioned in the schedule to the notification as

"residential" is hopelessly vague and conveys no idea about

the purpose of acquisition rendering the notification as

invalid in law. There is no indication as to what type of

residential accommodation was proposed or for whom or any

other details. The State cannot acquire the land of a

citizen for building some residence for another, unless the

same is in " public interest" or for the benefit of the

"public" or an identifiable section thereof. In the absence

of the details about the alleged "public purpose" for which

the land was sought to be acquired, no-one could comprehend

as to why the land was being acquired and therefore was

prevented from taking any further steps in the matter.

In Munshi Singh & Others etc. etc. v. Union of India

etc. etc., [1973] 1 SCR 973 the notification issued under

Section 4(1) of the Act had stated the purpose for

acquisition as "for planned development of the area". A

note was also appended in the notification on the effect

that the "plan of the land may be inspected in the office of

the Collector, Meerut". This Court, dealing with the

requirements of Section 4 in the context of the necessity to

state with clarity the "public purpose" in the notification,

observed:

"it is apparent from sub-s. (2) that the public

purpose which has to be stated in sub-s. (1) of s.4

has to be particularised because unless that is

done the various matters which are mentioned in

sub-s. (2) cannot be carried out; for instance, the

officer concerned or his servants and workmen

cannot do any

666

act necessary to ascertain whether it is suitable

for the purpose for which it is being acquired.

If the public purpose stated in s. 4(1) is planned

development of the area without anything more it is

extremely difficult to comprehend how all the

matters set out in sub-s. (2) can be carried out by

the officer specially authorised in this behalf and

by his servants and workmen".

[p.981]

The Court then went on to say:

"As already noticed in the notifications under s. 4

all that was stated was that the land was required

for "planned development of the area". There was

no indication whatsoever whether the development

was to be of residential and building sites or of

commercial and industrial plots nor was it possible

for any one interested in the land sought to be

acquired to find out what kind of planned

development was under contemplation i.e. whether

the land would be acquired and the development made

by the Government or whether the owners of

properties would be required to develop a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8

particular area in a specified way...

[p.981]

This Court finally held that owing to the vagueness and

indefiniteness of the "public purpose" stated in the

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the acquisition

proceedings were bad and the entire acquisition proceedings

were quashed. Munshi Singh's case (supra) was at a much

better footing than the instant case, where the only

disclosure of the "public purpose" is stated to be

"residential".

That apart, this case also discloses non-application of

mind by the authorities concerned and rather casual manner

in dealing with the property of the citizens vitiating the

acquisition proceedings. Whereas the letter of the

Executive Engineer of the Housing Board to the Collector had

indicated that the Chairman of the Board had found the land

suitable for "construction of buildings and shops under the

self financing scheme", the notification issued under

Section 4<1> makes no mention thereof instead declares the

"Public purpose" to be "residential" . Again, in the

declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act the "public

purpose" has been stated to be "housing scheme of Housing

Board" and not construction of buildings and shops under the

self financing scheme" ! Admittedly, apart from the

667

letter referred to above, there was no other material with

the State Government and, therefore, it is not

understandable on what material, did the State Government

state the "public purpose" in different terms in the

notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6(1). No

explanation has been furnished by the learned counsel as to

why different public purposes were mentioned in the letter

of the Board and the two notifications issued under Section

4 and 6 of the Act. These factors go to expose non-

application of mind by the authorities while issuing the

impugned notification and it appears that they were not even

sure about the "public purpose" for which the land was

sought to be acquired.

We have, in view of the above discussion, not been

persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the

High Court and we agree with the High Court that the

impugned notification is vitiated on account of being vague

and for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of

the Act.

In the view that we have taken, it is not necessary for

us to express any opinion on the question as to whether

recourse could at all be had, in the instant case, to the

urgency provisions or the effect of the absence of even a

draft or contemplated scheme, let alone a finalised scheme

prepared by the Housing Board, before the issuance of

declaration under section 6 of the Act.

Special Leave Petitions (Civil) are, therefore,

dismissed.

N.P.V. Petitions dismissed.

668