HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 129 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjari Singh,Kunal Ravi Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahendra Pratap,S. Singh Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Petitioner, before this Court, seeks quashing of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1894") dated 13th July, 2012, which was published on 21st July, 2012 in official gazette as well as the notification issued under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1894 dated 29th August, 2013, which was published on 6th September, 2013, on one short ground, namely that the notification under Section 6 has been published after expiry of the statutory period prescribed under proviso 2 to Section 6 of the Act, 1894 i.e. one year from the date of publication of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894.
Facts giving rise to the present writ petition lie in a very narrow compass.
A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 dated 13th July, 2012 was published by the State Government in the official gazette on 21st July, 2012, beside publication in two newspapers as well as by information to the public at large of the locality concerned by beat of drums etc. There were some errors in the notification so published and therefore, a corrigendum under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894 was published by the State Government in the official gazette on 1st September, 2012. Notification under Section 6 (1) of Act, 1894 dated 29th August, 2013 was published in the official gazette on 6th September, 2013.
According to the petitioner, period of one year, as prescribed under Section 6 (1) of Act, 1894, should be counted from 21st July, 2012 when notification under Section 4 (1) was published in the official gazette. The notification called corrigendum notification was only a correction of a typographical error, which had crept in the earlier notification published on 21st July, 2012 and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Tyagi & others vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 164, such corrigendum notification cannot be the basis for computing the period of one year. It is the case of the petitioner that the period of one year should be counted from 21st July, 2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2012) 12 SCC 443, paragraph-21 in support of his submission that corrigendum will relate back to the date on which notification under Section 4 (1) was issued. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into account for arriving at a finding that the declaration under Section 6 (1) had been issued within the period prescribed of one year under proviso (ii) to Section 6 of Act, 1894.
Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority on the contrary point outs that original notification published on 21st July, 2012 contained substantial mistakes inasmuch as qua one plot, the area acquired had not been mentioned, while in respect of the other, there was an error in the area acquired. He therefore, submits that the corrigendum notification in the facts of the case is to be treated as the last notification under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894, more so when in absence of corrigendum notification, the earlier notification under Section 4 (1) would not be complete.
He also points out that the issue with regard to the date of the notification under Section 4 of Act, 1894 to be taken into consideration for computing the period of one year prescribed under Section 6 (2), where corrigendum notification had been issued under Section 4 (1), was examined by the State Government and vide order dated 4th April, 2005, it has been clarified that where corrigendums are substantial in nature, then the period of one year has to be counted from the date of publication of the corrigendum notification.
It is also stated by Sri Mahendra Pratap that the acquisition proceedings have been completed and the State Government has taken possession of the plots in question and had transferred the same to the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The Ghaziabad Development Authority in turn has initiated development activities, sewer lines have been laid and road to the extent of 6,623 meters has been laid.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition.
It is no doubt true that the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Tyagi (Supra) has laid down that the corrigendum notification issued shall relate back to the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) and the date of corrigendum cannot be the date for computing the period of one year, but such conclusion had been arrived at by the Apex Court after noticing that it had not been demonstrated before it that corrigendum has been published in the official gazette. In the facts of the case before us it is an admitted position that the corrigendum had been published in the official gazette 1st September, 2012. It is also not in dispute that in respect of two plots, there were error in respect of the actual area sought to be acquired.
In our opinion the corrigendum notification published, in the facts of the case, is substantial in nature. In absence of the corrigendum notification, acquisition proceedings under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894 would not have been completed. We further find that under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894, following phrase was added in sub-Section (1) vide Act No. 68 of 1984:
"[(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)]."
From simple reading of the phrase so added to Section 4(1), we find that the last of the dates of publication and giving of the notice has to be taken as the date of publication of the notification under the said Section.
As already noticed above, the last of the notification for Section 4 (1) being treated as complete would be the date of the publication of the corrigendum in the official gazette dated 1st September, 2012.
We are of the considered opinion that this date i.e. 1st September, 2012 in the facts of the case should be taken as the date of last publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894 counted from the said date, we find that notification under Section 6 (1) of Act, 1894 has been issued within one year of the date of notification under Section 4 (1) to be precise notification under Section 6 (1) has been issued on 29th August, 2013 in the official gazette.
We may also take note of the clarification issued by the State Government dated 4th April, 2005, wherein it has been provided that if the corrigendum is substantial in nature, then the date of issuance of the corrigendum would be the date for computing the period of one year provided under Section 6 (1) proviso of the Act, 1894.
So far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Tyagi (Supra) is concerned, we may record that said judgment deals with the publication of the notifications, which were surplus in nature i.e. beyond the mandatorily required publication under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894.
The Apex Court has repeatedly held that little difference in the facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the presidential value of a judgment (Reference Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2003 (2) SCC, 111, which has recently been followed in the case of Rajveer Singh vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal, reported in AIR 2008 SCW 5817).
In the totality of the circumstances on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no substance in the challenge made to the notification published on 29th August, 2013 under Section 6 (1) of Act, 1894.
The present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 18.5.2015
Sushil/-
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 129 of 2014
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjari Singh,Kunal Ravi Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahendra Pratap,S. Singh
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on the separate sheets.
(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 18.5.2015
Sushil/-
Order on Civil Misc. (Impleadment) Application No. 37356 of 2015
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This impleadment filed on behalf of the petitioner is allowed, as the objection with regard to the payment of separate court fee has already been complied and the requisite court fee has been deposited.
Let necessary corrections be made today itself.
(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 18.5.2015
Sushil/-