BABU RAM SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA — 1985 DIGILAW 84 (DEL)

S. S. CHADHA ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of C. W. P. 3796 of 1982 and C. W. P. 109 of 1983 which raise identical questions of facts and law and are challenging the acquisition proceedings. ( 2 ) THE land measuring 920 bighas 9 biswas situated in village Chilla Saroda Bangar was notified under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide notification dt. 17-11-1980 for a public purpose, namely, planned devopment of Delhi. Objections were invited from the interested persons. After considering the objections under S. 5 (A) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector submits his report to the Delhi Administration along with the record of the proceedings. The Delhi Administration thereafter issued a declaration under S. 6 of the Act vide notification dt. Sept. 29. 1981 for acquisition of the land for the purpose mentioned above. Notices under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act were issued to all the interested persons. In response to those notices, the claims of the persons interested were received. The claims were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector. Award No. 39/82-83 was made on Sept. 30. 1982. ( 3 ) THE petitioners in C. W. P. 3796/82 claim to be the Bhumidars of the land mentioned in para 1 of the writ petition. The petitioners challenge the said notification under S. 4 and declaration under S. 6 of the Act as bad in law, illegal having been made under exercise of colourable power on various grounds. The petitioners in C. W. P. 109/83 are the purchasers, by sale deeds registered on May 20,1981, from some of the petitioners in C. W. P. 3796/82. They raise an identical challenge. ( 4 ) MR. S. S. Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioners in C. W. P. 3796/82 and Mr. S. S. Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioners in C. W. P. 109/83 raise only one question at the hearing. It is contended that the substance of the notification under S. 4 of the Act has to be given due publicity in the locality concerned simultaneously with the Gazette and this mandatory requirement has been contravened resulting in deprivation of their fundamental right to file objections under S. 5 (A) of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector. Reference is made to Rules 109 and 110 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules. Reference is made to Rules 109 and 110 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules. 1962 which provide for the maintenance of a. diary by the Patwari containing, inter alia, all occurrences of the issue of any notice by a revenue Court, official or Punchayati Adalat. The submission is that the Patwari s diary does not contain any occurrence of the publication of the substances of the notification in the concerned locality either simultaneously with the Gazette or immediately after the publication in the Gazette and as such the presumption is that no publicity was made. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in "rattan Singh v. State of Punjab", AIR 1976 Punj and Har 279, wherein it was held that the substance of the notification has to be published in the concerned locality simultaneously with the publication of notification under S. 4 (1) in the Official Gazette and in case it is not possible to give notice of the substance in the concerned locality simultaneously, then at least it has to be done immediately after the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. ( 5 ) SECTION 4 of the Act provides for the publication of the preliminary notification. Whenever 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 has to be published in the Official Gazette and the Collector is also required to give public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the concerned locality. It is conceded that there was the publication in the Official Gazette of the notification under S. 4 of the Act. There is also no dispute that the publication of the notice in the concerned locality is a mandatory requirement. I. therefore, called upon Miss Rekha Sharma, the learned counsel for the Government to produce the original records. The return to Rule Nisi is also original records in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The original records show that the substance of the notification dated Nov. 17. 1980 issued under S. 4 of the Act was given at convenient places in the concerned locality. The return to Rule Nisi is also original records in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The original records show that the substance of the notification dated Nov. 17. 1980 issued under S. 4 of the Act was given at convenient places in the concerned locality. The report on the back of the public notice records the fact that a copy of the notice was pasted in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, also in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector also in the office of the Tehsildar. It further records the publication of the notice of the interested persons by pasting a copy of the notice at the Chopal of the concerned locality. There is thus compliance of the provision of the publication of the notice in the locality in which the properties proposed to be acquired are situate. The fact that a number of interested persons have filed objections under S. 5 (A) of the Act is presumptive proof of the public notice of the substance of the notification being given at convenient places in the concerned locality. ( 6 ) I am unable to read the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 in the Act. Apart from it the occurrences which have to be recorded by the Patwari in his diary, mentions only the issue of any notice by a revenue Court, official or Punchayati Adalat. It does not include the publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Act issued by the Government. It could not embrace the notification issued by the appropriate Government under the Act or causing a public notice of the substance of that notification by the Government in the concerned locality. This function is not assigned to the Patwari for being entered into his diary. In the case before me the official records produced contain the entries regarding the factum of the substance of the notification being publicly announced in the concerned locality. This is more authentic and raises an inference in favour of the Government. ( 7 ) THE public notice in the locality in which the property proposed to be acquired is situate is however not given simultaneously or immediately after the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. This is more authentic and raises an inference in favour of the Government. ( 7 ) THE public notice in the locality in which the property proposed to be acquired is situate is however not given simultaneously or immediately after the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. There was a divergence of judicial opinion as to the time gap between the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette and public notice of substance of such notification being given in the concerned locality. The controversy has now been settled by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in "deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi", AIR 1984 SC 1721 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have reversed and overruled the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and some other Courts. The Supreme Court has not accepted the view that the public notice has to be simultaneous or immediate thereafter the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. All that is required is that the publication of the public notice must be contemporaneous though not simultaneous or immediate after one another. It was ruled : "it may be noticed at once that S. 4 ( 1) does " not prescribe that public notice of the substance of the notification should be given in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or immediately thereafter. Publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are two vital steps required to be taken under S. 4 (1) before proceeding to take the next step of entering upon the land under S. 4 (2 ). The time factor is not a vital element of S. 4 (1) and there is no warrant for reading the words simultaneously or immediately" thereafter into S. 4 (l ). Publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are the essential elements of S. 4 (1) and not the simultaneity or immediately or the Publication and the Public Notice. But since the steps contemplated by S. 4 (2) cannot be undertaken unless publication is made and public notice given as contemplated by S. 4 (1), it is implicit that the publication and the public notice must be contemporaneous though not simultaneous or immediately after one another. But since the steps contemplated by S. 4 (2) cannot be undertaken unless publication is made and public notice given as contemplated by S. 4 (1), it is implicit that the publication and the public notice must be contemporaneous though not simultaneous or immediately after one another. Naturally contemporaneity may involve a gap of time and by the very nature of the things, the publication in the Official Gazette and the public notice in the locality must necessarily be separated by a gap of time. This does not mean that the publication and the public notice may be separated by a long interval of time. What is necessary, is that the continuity of action should not appear to be broken by a deep gap. If there is publication in the Gazette and if there is public notice in the locality, the requirements of S. 4 (l) 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 gap of time it may become necessary to probe further to discover if there is any cause for the delay and if the delay has caused prejudice to anyone. " ( 8 ) NO further point has been urged. The two writ petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.