Skip to content


Habib Ahmad Vs. the State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 543 of 1964
Judge
Reported inAIR1965All344
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 4(1) and 6
AppellantHabib Ahmad
RespondentThe State of U.P. and ors.
Advocates:H.C. Sharma, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
property - notification and declaration for acquisition of land - sections 4 and 6 of land acquisition act, 1894 - public notice by collector - non compliance of direction contained in para 415 of revenue manual - declaration cannot be quashed on this ground - land required for public purposes or not - to be decided solely by state government - applicant did not file objection - cannot challenge the declaration. - - in any case, failure on the part of the collector to comply with the direction contained in paragraph 415 of the revenue manual would not justify the quashing of the notification. he, therefore, could not excuse his failure to file an objection by pleading that no compliance was done with the directions contained in paragraph 415 of the revenue manual......published in the official gazette and was admittedly so published. the collector also had to give public notice of its substance at convenient places in the locality and it is not alleged that he did not do so. the notification mentioned that certain land was acquired for a public purpose. the statement in the notification that it was required for a public purpose was conclusive and could not be challenged even on the ground of mala fides. there was therefore, nothing illegal or detective in the notification issued under section 4 and no case was made out for its being quashed. 2. it was contended before us that the collector did not comply with the direction contained in paragraph 415 of the revenue manual which requires the collector to serve upon every person interested in the land a.....
Judgment:

Desai, C. J.

1. This is an appeal from an order of our brother Dwivedi refusing to quash by certiorari a notification issued under Section 4 and a declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not alleged in the petition that there was any defect in either of them. The notification issued under Section 4 had to be published in the official gazette and was admittedly so published. The Collector also had to give public notice of its substance at convenient places in the locality and it is not alleged that he did not do so. The notification mentioned that certain land was acquired for a public purpose. The statement in the notification that it was required for a public purpose was conclusive and could not be challenged even on the ground of mala fides. There was therefore, nothing illegal or detective in the notification issued under Section 4 and no case was made out for its being quashed.

2. It was contended before us that the Collector did not comply with the direction contained in paragraph 415 of the Revenue Manual which requires the Collector to serve upon every person interested in the land a notice containing the substance of the notification. This rule has been made by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 55 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 4(1) the Collector has to cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality and the direction contained in paragraph 415 requiring him to give notice of the substance of the notification to every person interested in the land besides posting a notice at convenient places in the locality and publishing it by proclamation in the neighbourhood of the land goes beyond the scope of authority conferred upon the State Government. Requiring a notice of the notification to be given to every person who is known or believed to be interested in the land sought to be acquired cannot be said to be causing public notice of the substance of the notification to be given. The rule requiring the Collector to post at convenient places in the locality copies of the notice and to publish it by proclamation in the neighbourhood of the land is exhaustic (sic) public of the substance of the notification and nothing more is required to be done by the Collector. The State Government could not, therefore, require him through paragraph 415 of the Revenue Manual also to serve upon every person interested in the land a notice containing the substance of the notification. In any case, failure on the part of the Collector to comply with the direction contained in paragraph 415 of the Revenue Manual would not justify the quashing of the notification. As we said above, the quashing of the notification was not sought on this ground.

3. The appellant did not file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. None else also filed any objection and a declaration was made as required by Section 6. When no objection was filed by appellant there was nothing to prevent the declaration from being made and no case was made out for the quashing of the declaration. The appellant attacked the declaration by contending that since no compliance was done with the direction contained in paragraph 415 of the Revenue Manual he did not file any objection under Section 5-A but it was his own duty to file an objection on getting information about the notification published in theofficial gazette. The cause of action for his filing an objection arose on the publication of the notification and the period of limitation also ran from that date. He, therefore, could not excuse his failure to file an objection by pleading that no compliance was done with the directions contained in paragraph 415 of the Revenue Manual. Even if no compliance had been done, it was his duty to file an objection within, the prescribed period of limitation computed from the date of the publication of the notification in the gazette, if he intended to file one. When he himself did not avail himself of the opportunity by filing an objection he could not challenge the declaration on the ground that he did not file an objection.

4. Neither the notification nor the declaration can be quashed on the ground that there was no necessity for acquiring the land for a public purpose. Whether the land is required for a public purpose or not has to be decided solely by the State Government.

5. The special appeal is dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //