Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1043 (MP)

Sudarshan Prasad Patel v. State of M. P.

2006-08-31

K.K.LAHOTI

body2006
ORDER 1. Both the above petitions are decided by this common order because similar points are involved. For the convenience, facts are taken from WP No. 694512002. The petitioner is an owner of land situated at village Bamhanari, Tahsil Ramnagar, District Satna. The respondent issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to in short "the Act") Annexure P-l dated 25th September, 2002 published in the M.P. Gazette on 18th October, 2002 by which it was notified that the land situated in village Bamhanari area 223.40 acres is required for public purposes. The respondents have also invoked section 17 (1) of the Act and excluded the inquiry under section 5A of the Act. Thereafter under section 6 of the Act, notification dated 25th September 2002 was published in Gazette on 1st of November, 2002 by which land of the petitioner was declared acquired for public purposes. The petitioner has challenged these notifications on following grounds: (i) That the notifications under sections 4 and 5 of the Act, both were issued on 25th September 2002. Though these were published in the gazetted dated 12th October, 2002 and 1st of November 2002 respectively, but are in violation of provisions of section 17 (4) of the Act and the declaration under section 6 of the Act cannot be issued before publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act in the official gazette. (ii) That the notification issued under section 4 relates to the land of District Satna, Tahsil Ramnagar, village Bamhanari, but notification Annexure P-2 is in respect of land of District Rewa, Tahsil Ramnagar, village Bamhanari. As the notification under section 6 has been issued in respect of the land situated in District Rewa for which no notification under section 4 was issued and the petitioner's lands which are situated in District Satna, no notification under section 6 of the Act has been issued. So both the notifications deserve to be quashed. Reliance is placed to the judgment of the apex Court in State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam [1989 (I) MPWN 144 = AIR 1989 SC 682 ] and submitted that the notifications issued by the respondents may be quashed. 2. So both the notifications deserve to be quashed. Reliance is placed to the judgment of the apex Court in State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam [1989 (I) MPWN 144 = AIR 1989 SC 682 ] and submitted that the notifications issued by the respondents may be quashed. 2. The counsel appearing for State supported the action of the respondents and submitted: (i) That though the n0tifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on 2Sth September 2002, but these were published on different dates in the official gazette on 18.10.2002 and 1st November 2002 and there is sufficient compliance of the Act. (ii) That though in the notification under section 6 of the Act, the district has wrongly been mentioned, but it has been rectified by the respondents by issuing corrigendum filed along with supplementary reply (filed in WP No. 6944/2002) and submitted that this petition may be dismissed. 3. So far as publication of both the notifications are concerned, it is not in dispute that both the notifications were published on different dates in the gazette on 18.10.2002 and 1.11.2002, but the fact remains that both the notifications were prepared signed and issued by the authority on 2Sth September 2002. The relevant provisions in this regard are sections 6 (2) and 17 (4) which reads thus: "6 (2) Every declaration shall be published in the official gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulation in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the date of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. 17 (4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1) or subsection (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1)". Section 17 (4) of the Act specifically provides that a declaration may be-made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1). The aforesaid provision specifically provides that the declaration may be issued only after publication of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act and not prior to it. In this case, the declaration was made on 25th September 2002 itself which was much prior to the date of publication of the notification under section 4 in the gazette of 18.10.2002. Both the notifications were prepared on the same date without awaiting publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act in the official gazette. The apex Court in Radhey Shyam (supra) considering similar facts held thus: "14. It is true that the expression "after the date of the publication of the notification" introduced in S. 4 can be explained away as making no change from the provisions of law by reading it along with the amendment made in section 4 whereby, in different situation in S. 4 the last date of publication of the notice has been determined as the date of the publication of the notification and similarly in S. 6 a date of the publication of the notice has been provided for. But the words "after the date of the publication of the notification" in sub-section (4) of S. 17 read simplicitor clearly indicate that the declaration under S. 6 had to be made after the publication of the notification meaning thereby subsequent to the date of the publication of the notification. It appears to us that there is nothing in the scheme of the Act which militates against such a construction. It appears to us that there is nothing in the scheme of the Act which militates against such a construction. The fact that at times where emergency provisions are invoked emergent action may be taken but in such a situation in view of the state of law that was before it, the legislature has made a conscious change which cannot be explained away merely because this is a consequence of the changes in Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act. 15. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on Lord Howard de Walden v. I.R.C. [( 1948), 2All ER 825] for the proposition that no alteration in meaning by alteration of language can result unless the requirement of the english language demand it or those requirements permit it and the sense of the section demands it. In our opinion, in this case in view of the alteration of the language and the meaning of the language used and the sense will be in consonance with the interpretation that the change was intended. Similarly, in Hopes v. Hopes [(1948) 2 All ER 920], it was the proposition that changes In the word may be because the draftsman wanted to improve the style. But in this case the style is not improved and the expression 'after the date' as indicated above, becomes otiose. It is job of the Court to interpret the intention of the legislature by the words used. The fairest and the most rational method to interpret the will of the legislature is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made by signs, the most natural and probable, says Blackstone in his 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' (faesimile of 1st edition of 1765. University of Chicago Press, 1979) Volume 1 p. 59. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law. The words have to be understood in their usual and most known signification. If that be so, then the legislature must have had some intention in closing the expression' after' before 'date' of publication of the notification' in sub-section (4) of section 17 of the Act while making amendment by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984. The words have to be understood in their usual and most known signification. If that be so, then the legislature must have had some intention in closing the expression' after' before 'date' of publication of the notification' in sub-section (4) of section 17 of the Act while making amendment by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984. It is true that there were some changes giving the meaning of the date of the public in section 4 (I) and (2) as well as section 6 (2) of the Act. But for that, there was no need for the use of the expression 'after the date'. If that be the position, then we must accept the interpretation put upon the amended clause by the High Court in the judgment under appeal. It will, however, be open to the appellants to issue a fresh declaration under section 6, if so advised, within the period contemplated in the provision to section 6 (1) of the Act read with its first explanation." 4. That the legal position has been set at rest by the apex Court after considering the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Act prior to amendment in the 1984 and thereafter. The apex Court held that prior to amendment of 1984, it was permissible to publish both the notifications simultaneously. But after the amendment, a declaration can only be made 'after the date of publication of the Notification' under section 4. So there must be difference of dates between the date of the publication of the Notification under sections 4 and 6. Hence both the notifications cannot be published on the same date. This act of the respondents is in violation of section 17 (4) of the Act. The expression 'after the date of the publication of the notification' introduced in section 4 can be explained by reading it along with the amendment made in section 4 whereby in different situation in section 4, the last date of publication of the notice has been determined as the date of the publication of the notification and similarly in section 6 a date of the publication of the notice has been provided for. It clearly indicates that declaration under section 6 had to be made after the publication of the notification, meaning thereby subsequent to the date of publication of the notification. 5. It clearly indicates that declaration under section 6 had to be made after the publication of the notification, meaning thereby subsequent to the date of publication of the notification. 5. In view of the aforesaid settled position of the law, facts of this case may be seen, the declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 25th September, 2002, on the same day when notice under section 4 was made and signed though it was published in the gazette on 1.11.2002. The aforesaid procedure is not permissible under the law. Accordingly, the notification under section 6 of the Act (Annexure P-2) is not sustainable under the law and accordingly it is quashed. 6. Though the counsel appearing for respondents submitted that in the notification under section 6 of the Act, the District Rewa was wrongly mentioned which was duly rectified by corrigendum by the respondents and it is stated at the Bar that this corrigendum was published in the gazette of M.P., on 25.4.2003. Though the aforesaid error has been rectified but the fact remains that another fresh notification has not been issued by the respondents under section 6 and only a corrigendum has been issued which would not fulfil the requirement of law, or rectify the illegality in previous notification. 7. Considering aforesaid, the notification under section 6 of the Act is hereby quashed on the aforesaid grounds, and these petitions are allowed in part, with no order as to costs.