1985 JTR(SC) 339
1986 AllCJ 332 ; 1986 1 APLJ 14 ; 1986 1 CurCC(SC) 419 ; 1985 2 Scale 779 ; 1986 2 Scale 779 ; 1986 1 SCC 3 ; 1986 3 SCR 152 ; 1986 1 UJ 60 ; 1986 KHC 896
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. Hyderabad URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, hyderabad, andhra PRADESH
Versus
AMRI KHAN
Decided on, September 30, 1985
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.4(1)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended retrospectively by the Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 with effect from 12/09/1975, governs the validity of notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6. The Amendment expressly applies from 12/09/1975 and substitutes Section 4(1) to require that, within forty days from publication in the Official Gazette, public notice of the substance be given in the locality. The High Court had earlier held that failure to give public notice on the same day as the Official Gazette publication invalidated the notification, but this view was overruled by this courts subsequent decision in Deepak Pahwa, which permitted a reasonable gap between the two publications. The Amending Act, passed to validate acquisitions made after the earlier fullbench judgment, must be given effect according to its plain words, and it renders the earlier interpretation untenable for notifications issued after its retrospective operation.
(B) The core legal principles are that Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requires publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality, but contemporaneity does not require sameday action; a gap not causing a break in continuity is permissible. The amendment is retrospective, and its explicit direction that it shall be deemed to have come into force from 12/09/1975 must be obeyed, regardless of any supposed legislative assumption underlying it.
Facts of the case:
The government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4(1) on 4/08/1977 for land acquisition, published it in the Official Gazette on that date, and gave public notice in the locality on 3/10/1977, which was more than forty days later. An inquiry under Section 5A was held, an exclusion was made, and a further notification under Section 6 was issued on 10/01/1979. Respondents challenged the validity of the notifications, and the High Court quashed them on the ground of noncompliance with the sameday publication requirement. Appeals were filed with special leave.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts reliance on the sameday requirement was erroneous following the later decision in Deepak Pahwa. However, even under the amended law, the public notice under Section 4(1) was issued more than forty days after publication in the Official Gazette, which introduced a fatal infirmity and invalidated the notification under Section 4(1) and consequently under Section 6. The amendments retrospective operation was clear and must prevail.
Issues:
(i) Whether public notice under Section 4(1) must be given on the same day as publication in the Official Gazette. (ii) Whether the Amending Act operates retrospectively and validates or invalidates the notifications in question.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 4(1) requires publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality within forty days; the Amending Act, with retrospective effect from 12/09/1975, invalidates the notification because the public notice was delayed beyond that period, and the High Courts earlier sameday requirement is no longer applicable.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed, and the impugned notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 are invalid.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended retrospectively by the Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 with effect from 12/09/1975, governs the validity of notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6. The Amendment expressly applies from 12/09/1975 and substitutes Section 4(1) to require that, within forty days from publication in the Official Gazette, public notice of the substance be given in the locality. The High Court had earlier held that failure to give public notice on the same day as the Official Gazette publication invalidated the notification, but this view was overruled by this courts subsequent decision in Deepak Pahwa, which permitted a reasonable gap between the two publications. The Amending Act, passed to validate acquisitions made after the earlier fullbench judgment, must be given effect according to its plain words, and it renders the earlier interpretation untenable for notifications issued after its retrospective operation.
(B) The core legal principles are that Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requires publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality, but contemporaneity does not require sameday action; a gap not causing a break in continuity is permissible. The amendment is retrospective, and its explicit direction that it shall be deemed to have come into force from 12/09/1975 must be obeyed, regardless of any supposed legislative assumption underlying it.
Facts of the case:
The government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4(1) on 4/08/1977 for land acquisition, published it in the Official Gazette on that date, and gave public notice in the locality on 3/10/1977, which was more than forty days later. An inquiry under Section 5A was held, an exclusion was made, and a further notification under Section 6 was issued on 10/01/1979. Respondents challenged the validity of the notifications, and the High Court quashed them on the ground of noncompliance with the sameday publication requirement. Appeals were filed with special leave.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts reliance on the sameday requirement was erroneous following the later decision in Deepak Pahwa. However, even under the amended law, the public notice under Section 4(1) was issued more than forty days after publication in the Official Gazette, which introduced a fatal infirmity and invalidated the notification under Section 4(1) and consequently under Section 6. The amendments retrospective operation was clear and must prevail.
Issues:
(i) Whether public notice under Section 4(1) must be given on the same day as publication in the Official Gazette. (ii) Whether the Amending Act operates retrospectively and validates or invalidates the notifications in question.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 4(1) requires publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality within forty days; the Amending Act, with retrospective effect from 12/09/1975, invalidates the notification because the public notice was delayed beyond that period, and the High Courts earlier sameday requirement is no longer applicable.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed, and the impugned notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 are invalid.
K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHOUDHARY, K.S.Chauhan, K.S.CHOUDHARY, P.P.Rao, R.P.BHATT, T.V.S.N.Chari, V.GROVER
Judgment-
BHAGWATI
( 1 ) THESE appeals by special leave would have perhaps met with a different fate if the Land Acquisition Act, 1894in its application in the State of Andhra Pradesh had not been amended by the Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) with retrospective effect from 12/09/1975. The retrospective amendment made by the Amending Act in S. 4 Ss. (1) of the Act completely invalidates the notifications under S. 4 sub-section (1) and S. 6 issued by the Andhra Pradesh government and the Judgment of the High court quashing these notifications has therefore to be sustained. The facts giving rise to these appeals are few and may be briefly stated as follows :
( 2 ) THE government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification under S. 4 sub-section (1) staling that a total area of 35 acres and 35 gunthas was likely to be needed for the purpose of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as HUDA ). The notification was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 4/08/1977 and public notice of the substance of the notification was given at convenient places in the locality, after a period of about 2 months, on 3/10/1977. Thereafter an inquiry under S. 5-A of the Act was held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and as a result of the inquiry, the Andhra Pradesh government decided to exclude an area of 6 acres 6 gunthas belonging to one Gayatri Devi Co-operative Housing Society and issued a notification under S. 6 of the Act on 10/01/1979 declaring that the remaining area of land admeasuring 29 acres 29 gunthas was needed for the purpose of HUDA. Notices under S. 9 were then issued to the respondents in these appeals who are the owners of different parcels of land comprised in the area notified under S. 6 and after holding an inquiry, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on 27/07/1981 and issued notices to the respondents calling upon them to deliver possession of the land acquired. The respondents thereupon filed writ petition in the High court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the validity of the notifications under S. 4 Ss. (1) and S. 6 issued by the Andhra Pradesh government.
( 3 ) THERE were several contentions raised on behalf of the respondents against the validity of the impugned notifications but, barring one, all were rejected by the High court. The one contention which found favour with the High court was that local publication of the substance of the notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) was not made on the same day on which the notification was published in the Official Gazette, but it was made almost 2 months later and the notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) was therefore invalid and the notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) being the foundation of the jurisdiction to proceed further with the acquisition, the notification under S. 6 must also fall. The High court, following an earlierfull bench decision rendered by it on 3/12/1982 in Writ Petition 5722 of 1981 and other allied Writ Petition, accepted this contention and quashed the notifications under S. 4 Ss. ( 1 ) and S. 6. The Land Acquisition Officer representing the State thereupon preferred the present appeals with special leave obtained from tins court.
( 4 ) THE principal question which would seem to arise in these appeals is as to whether the High court was right in taking the view that on a true interpretation of S. 4 Ss. (1) public notice of the substance of the notification under that S. must be given in the locality on the same day on which the notification is published in the Official Gazette and if it is not whether that would have an invalidating consequence. There was no decision of the Supreme court on this question at the time when the High court gave its Judgment in the present case, but subsequent to the delivery of the Judgment by the High court, this question came up for consideration before a bench of this court in special leave petitions directed against a judgment of the Delhi High court which had taken a view different from that taken in the present case by the Andbra Pradesh High court. This court held in Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. governor of Delhi that though publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are two vital steps required to be taken under Ss. (1) of S. 4 without which the steps contemplated under S. 4 Ss. (2) cannot be undertaken, there is nothing in Ss. (1) of S. 4 which requires that the publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality must be simultaneous or immediately after one another. This court pointed out that what Ss. (1) of S. 4 requires is that publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality must be contemporaneous but contemporaneity does not involve simultaneity or immediacy. There is bound to be a gap of time between publication of the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality but what is necessary is that they should net be separated by such a long interval of time that the continuity of action may appear to be broken by a deep gap. The court observed:
IF there is publication in the Gazette and if there is public notice in the locality, the requirements of S. 4 (1) must be held to be satisfied unless the two are unlinked from each other by a gap of time so large as may lead one to the prima facie conclusion of lack of bona fides in the proceedings for acquisition. If the notification and the public notice are separated by such a large gup of time, it may become necessary to probe further to 6 discover if there is any cause for the delay and if the delay has caused prejudice to anyone. The judgment impugned in the present appeals was clearly overruled by this decision in Deepak Pahwa case and it was held that notifications under S. 4 Ss. ( 1 ) and S. 6 could not be struck down as invalid merely on the ground that public notice of the substance of the notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) was not given on the same day as the publication in the Official Gazette. We would have had to consider, in the light of the observations contained in the decision in Deepak Pahwa case as to whether there was such a laige gap between the publication in the Official Gazette and the public notice in the locality that the continuity of action would appear to be broken and that would have necessitated examination of the question whether there was any justifiable cause for the delay and if the delay had caused prejudice to the respondents. But before the decision in Deepak Pahwa case came to be given by this court, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted the Amending Act which came into force with effect from 23/06/1983 and it is this Amending Act which renders it unnecessary for us to consider whether on the application of the ratio of the decision in Deepak Pahwa case the impugned notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) can be sustained or it is liable to be struck down as invalid.
( 5 ) WE may now proceed to refer to the relevant provisions of the Amending Act. The Amending Act was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature in order to counteract the effect of the full bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High court in W. P. 5722 of 1981 and other allied Writ Petition where inter alia it was held that publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality must be on the same day or else the notification under S. 4 Ss. ( 1 ) would be invalid. The Amending Act was therefore given retrospective effect and Ss. (3) of S. 1 expressly enacted that the Amending Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 12/09/1975. Every provision in the Amending Act must therefore a fortiori be deemed to have come into effect from the date namely, 12/09/1975. S. 2 of the Amending Act provided that in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh for the words "the Collector shall cause", the words "the Collector shall, within forty days from the date of publication of such notification, cause", shall be substituted. Ss. ( 1 ) of S. 4 in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh therefore read as follows with effect from 12/09/1975 :
WHENEVER it appears to the appropriate government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public 7 purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and the Collector shall, within forty days from the date of publication of such notification, cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. What therefore Ss. (1) of S. 4 as it stood from and after 12/09/1975 provided was that the notification under that S. shall be published in the Official Gazette and public notice of the substance of such notification shall be given in the locality "within forty days from the date of publication of such notification". This requirement would obviously apply to every notification under subsection (1) of S. 4 issued by the appropriate government on or after 12/09/1975. If in case of a notification issued under S. 4 Ss. (1) on or after 12/09/1975, public notice of the substance of such notification is not given in the locality within forty days from the date of publication of such notification in the Official Gazette, it would introduce a fatal infirmity invalidating such notification. Here in the present case, the notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) was published in the Official Gazette on 4/08/1977 but public notice of the substance of such notification was given in the locality as late as 3/10/1977 i. e. more than forty days after the date of publication of such notification in the Official Gazette. There was therefore clearly a violation of the mandate enacted in subsection (1) of S. 4 as it stood from and after 12/09/1975 and the notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) was liable to be struck down as invalid, though on a ground different from that which found favour with the High court.
( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant however made a valiant but futile attempt to escape from the consequence of retrospective amendment of Ss. (1) of S. 4 by contending that S. 2 of the Amending Act which introduced the amendment in Ss. (1) of S. 4 should not be read as having retrospective effect, but should be construed as prospective in operation. The argument urged on behalf of the appellant was that the Legislature enacted the Amending Act for the purpose of validating acquisitions made after 12/09/1975 which were liable to be declared invalid on account of the full bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High court in W. P. 5722 of 1981 and other allied Writ Petition and it could never have been the intention of the Legislature to invalidate acquisitions which were valid when made. The Legislature, contended the learned counsel, proceeded on the assumption that the full bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High court represented the correct law on the subject and it was on that assumption that the Amending Act was enacted by the Legislature. If, on the full bench judgmentof the Andhra Pradesh High court being reversed by this court in Deepak Pahwa case the assumption made by the Legislature turned out to be incorrect it was found that the Legislature proceeded on an erroneous view of the law in enacting the Amending Act, the Amending Act, argued the learned counsel, must be considered superfluous; and not the Amending Act, but the correct law as it prevailed prior to the Amending Act must be applied. This argument urged on behalf of the appellant is wholly specious and must be rejected. It is an argument of despair and it has only to be stated in order to be rejected. It is impossible to accept the proposition that because the Amending Act proceeded on an erroneous view of the law, it must be considered superfluous and must be deprived of all effect. Whatever be the reason for which the Legislature enacted the Amending Act and here the reason no doubt was to set at naught the effect of the full bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High court the Amending Act is on the statute book and is in force with effect from 12/09/1975 and it must be given effect according to the plain natural meaning of its words. Ss. (3) of S. I of the Amending Act provides in the clearest terms, not susceptible of any ambiguity or doubt that it shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 12/09/1975. It does not carve out any exception in relation to S. 2 of the Amending Act and that S. must also therefore, according to the clear and express mandate contained in Ss. (3) of S. 1, be deemed to have come into effect on 12/09/1975. It is true that if, in case of a notification under S. 4 subsection (1) issued after 12/09/1975, there is a gap of more than forty days between the date of its publication in the Official Gazette and the date when public notice of its substance was given in the locality. Ss. (1) of S. 4 as amended with retrospective effect from 12/09/1975 would render such notification invalid. But that can be no ground for denying to the amendment in Ss. (1) of S. 4 retrospective effect, which Ss. (3) of S. 1 of the Amending Act expressly directs that it shall have. There is in fact to our mind no inconsistency between the mandate of Ss. (1) of S. 4 and the law as declared by this court in Deepak Pahwa case This court said in Deepak Pahwa case that there should not be such a large gap between publication in the Gazette and public notice in the locality as would be indicative of break in the continuity of action. What the amended Ss. (1) of S. 4 does is to legislatively lay down the limit of the time gap beyond which it must be presumed that there is a break in the continuity of action. We must therefore reject the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that subsection (3) of S. 1 of the Amending Act must be read down so as to exclude from its operation S. 2 of that Act.
( 7 ) WE accordingly dismiss the appeals though on a ground different from that which appealed to the High court. Each party will bear and pay its own costs throughout.