Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.4473     OF     2000   

KULSUM R. NADIADWALA ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.    ... RESPONDENTS

O     R     D     E     R   

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment  

and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at  

Bombay in Writ Petition No.2699 of 1987 dated  

21.07.1998. By the impugned judgment and order, the  

High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by  

one of the interested persons, having interest in  

land Survey No.119/3 Pt. situated at Village Malad,  

Taluka, Borivali, District Bombay Suburban.

2. Section 4 Notification dated 24.10.1975, under  

the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  

(for short 'the Act') came to be issued by the  

State Government to acquire certain piece of lands

Page 2

2

situated in different villages for the purpose of  

establishing Central Ordinance Depot for the Union  

of India (Military).

3. The beneficiary of these lands is the Central  

Government. They are served, but at the time of  

hearing of this appeal, they were not present  

before the Court and, therefore, we had no occasion  

to hear the learned counsel for the Union of India.

4. We have heard Mr. Jay Savla, learned counsel  

for the appellants and Mr. Shankar Chillarge,  

learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra.

5. The appellants, herein, claim that they are the  

legal heirs of deceased Ismail Nadiadwala. During  

the lifetime of Ismail Nadiadwala, the State  

Government had issued notifications under Sections  

4 and 6 of the Act to acquire various lands for a  

public purpose, namely, for establishing military  

personnel ordinance on the land which belonged to

Page 3

3

late Ismail Nadiadwala and one Ibrahim Nadiadwala.  

They had a joint interest in the property.

6. After such acquisition and without issuing any  

notice to the appellants and after hearing only  

Ibrahim Nadiadwala, the award came to be passed by  

the State Government vide order dated 23.09.1986.  

Immediately, thereafter, Ibrahim Nadiadwala had  

requested the State Government to permit him to  

look into the records to find out whether he had  

issued with any notice. Since such permission was  

not granted to him, he had filed a petition before  

the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the  

Constitution of India, inter alia, questioning the  

notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the  

Act.   

7. As we have already noticed, the Division Bench  

of the Bombay High Court has dismissed the petition  

filed by the appellants.

Page 4

4

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants  

would contend that the respondent-State, while  

issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the  

Act, had not complied with the mandatory  

requirement, that is, to publish the notification  

in a public place. Secondly, it is stated that the  

appellants' predecessor was recorded as the owner  

of the property and no individual notice was issued  

to him. It is further contended that Section 6 of  

the notification was the subject matter of a Writ  

Petition before the High Court in Writ Petition  

No.149/1979. The High Court vide its order dated  

6.9.1982, while allowing the petition, had quashed  

the notification dated 22.11.1978 issued under  

Section 6 of the Act and the order so passed was  

not questioned by the respondent-State before any  

other forum.  According to learned counsel, since  

the order so passed by the learned Judge had  

attained finality, the respondent cannot now  

contend that it was confined only to the appellants

Page 5

5

in the said Writ Petition. Learned counsel further  

submits that after the Award was made, possession  

of the lands requires to be taken as provided under  

Section 16 of the Act. According to learned  

counsel, in the instant case, the respondents have  

not taken possession of the lands as envisaged  

under Section 16 of the Act.  Their stand appears  

to be that since the lands were already in  

possession of the Defence establishment, possession  

as required under Section 16 of the Act need not be  

resorted to.  Lastly, learned counsel would submit  

that after Section 6 notification was issued at the  

instance of the beneficiary of the notification,  

certain lands came to be deleted from Section 6  

notification and the same could not have been done  

without resorting to provisions of Section 48 of  

the Act. For all these reasons, the learned counsel  

would contend that, the notification issued by the  

State Government qua the appellants requires to be  

quashed.

Page 6

6

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State  

submits that there was delay on the part of the  

legal representatives of the registered owner and  

they did not approached the Court within a  

reasonable time, and therefore, the Writ Petition  

ought to have been rejected by the High Court only  

on the ground of delay and laches on the part of  

the appellants in approaching the Court.  Insofar,  

as the other legal contentions advanced by the  

learned counsel for the appellants before us, it  

appears that the learned counsel had no answers  

whatsoever.   In fact, he did not also answered  

them.

10. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as  

under :  

“Publication of preliminary  

notification and power of officers  

thereupon.-   

(1)Whenever it appears to the[  

appropriate Government] the land in any

Page 7

7

locality[ is needed or] is likely to be  

needed for any public purpose[ or for a  

company], a notification to that effect  

shall be published in the Official Gazette[  

and in two daily newspapers circulating in  

that locality of which at least one shall be  

in the regional language], and the Collector  

shall cause public notice of the substance  

of such notification to be given at  

convenient places in the said locality[ (the  

last of the dates of such publication and  

the giving of such public notice, being  

hereinafter referred to as the date of the  

publication of the notification)].

     (2)   Thereupon it shall be lawful for any  

officer, either generally or specially  

authorized by such Government in this  

behalf, and for his servants and workman,-  

to enter upon and survey and take levels  

of any land in such locality;  

to dig or bore into the sub- soil;  

to do all other acts necessary to  

ascertain whether the land is adapted for  

such purpose;  

to set out the boundaries of the land  

proposed to be taken and the intended line  

of the work (if any) proposed to be made

Page 8

8

thereon;  

to mark such levels, boundaries and line  

by placing marks and cutting trenches; and,  

where otherwise the survey cannot be  

completed and the levels taken and the  

boundaries and line marked, to cut down and  

clear away any part of any standing crop,  

fence or jungle;  

Provided that no person shall enter into  

any building or upon any enclosed court or  

garden attached to a dwelling house (unless  

with the consent of the occupier thereof)  

without previously giving such occupier at  

least seven days' notice in writing of his  

intention to do so.“

The said provisions came up for consideration  

before this Court in the case of Collector  

(District     Magistrate)     Allahabad     &     Anr.   Vs. Raja     Ram    

Jaiswal, (1985) 3 SCC 1.  In the said decision, the  

Court specifically observed that there are two  

requirements for the issuance of Notification under  

Section 4 of the Act.  The first requirement is  

that the notification requires to be published in

Page 9

9

an Official Gazette and the second requirement is  

that the acquiring authority should cast public  

notices of the substance of such notification in a  

convenient place in the locality in which the land  

proposed to be acquired is situate.  The Court has  

further observed that both the contentions are  

cumulative and they are mandatory.

11. In the instant case, the respondents before the  

High Court had filed their reply affidavit. They  

did not dispute the contentions of the appellants  

that they had not issued any public notices as  

required under Section 4 of the Act. They only  

reiterated that such notification was published in  

the Official Gazette.

12. Since the mandatory requirement as required  

under Section 4(1) of the Act is not complied with  

by the respondents, while acquiring the lands in  question, in our opinion, the entire acquisition  proceedings requires to be declared as null and void.

Page 10

10

This Court in J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay  Krishan Kaul,(2011) 10 SCC 714, has observed that all  the formalities of serving notice to the interested  person, stipulated under Section 4 of the Act, has to  be mandatorily complied with in the manner provided  therein, even though the interested persons have  knowledge of the acquisition proceedings. This Court  further observed thus:  

32. It is settled law that when any statutory pro- vision provides a particular manner for doing a  particular act, the said thing or act must be done  in accordance with the manner prescribed therefor  in the Act. Merely because the parties concerned  were aware of the acquisition proceedings or served  with individual notices does not make the position  alter when the statute makes it very clear that all  the procedures/modes have to be strictly complied  with in the manner provided therein. Merely because  the landowners failed to submit their objections  within 15 days after the publication of notifica- tion under Section 4(1) of the State Act, the au- thorities cannot be permitted to claim that it need  not be strictly resorted to.

13. In view of the conclusion that we have reached on  the first issue canvassed by learned counsel for the  appellants, we do not think that the other issues that  

the learned counsel for the appellants has raised and

Page 11

11

canvassed before us need to be answered.

14. In view of the above, while allowing this  

appeal, we restrict the claim of the appellants  

only to 50% of the lands in question, namely, lands  

in Survey No.119/3 Pt. situated at Village Malad,  

Taluka, Borivali, District Bombay Suburban.

15. We further direct that the respondents shall  

handover 50% of the vacant possession of the said  

land to the appellants forthwith.

No costs.

Ordered accordingly.

...................J. (H.L. DATTU)

...................J. (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI; APRIL 17, 2012