1994 M L D 920

[Supreme Court (A J & K)]

Before Abdul Majeed Mallick, CJ

MUHAMMAD SHAF1---Petitioner

versus

COLLECTOR, LAND ACOUISITION, MIRPUR and 19 others---Respondents

Writ Petition No. 74 of 1992, decided on 11th January, 1994.

(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----S. 4---Acquisition---Notification---Conditions precedent for publishing such notification---

Personal/individual service of notification ---Necessity-- Notification for acquisition was a
public, pronouncement by appropriate Government, in respect of land needed for public purpose-
--Such notification has to be published and its copies affixed at conspicuous place on the land to
be acquired or at conspicuous place in the village where land was situate-- Personal or individual
service of notification under S. 4, Land Acquisition Act 1894, was least insisted/required---No
legal defect in the publication of such notification having been pointed out, objection as to its
validity was not warranted in circumstances.

(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----S. 5-A---Final acquisition by Collector---Nature of inquiry conceived by S.5-A, Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 stated.

(c) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894)---

----S. 4---Acquisition of property---Objections to acquisition of property to be filed within thirty

days---Objections filed beyond period of thirty days after issuance of notification, were not
entertainable in the eye of law.

(d) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----Ss. 6 & 5-A---Declaration under S. 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Mode of making such
declaration stated.

M.S. Tariq for Petitioner.

Raja. Muhammad Siddique Khan and M. Akram Mughal, Addl. A: G, for Respondents.
ORDER

Muhammad Shafi, petitioner, Niamat Bibi, Nazir Ahmed, Naseer Ahmed, Fazal Karim, Munir
Ahmed, Shaheen Akhtar, Pir Muhammad, Hasan Muhammad and Raj Muhammad, are the
owners in possession of land comprising Survey-No. 2941, measuring 18 Kanals 12 Marlas,
situate in village Chhani Raikie, Tehsil Bhimber. Three Kanals and few Marlas out of this land
was acquired previously for the construction of local school. Land measuring 2 Kanals 10 Marlas
was further acquired for the extension of the School premises and playground. An award was
made by the Collector, Land Acquisition, on September 8, 1992, @ Rs.7,000 per Kanal. The
acquisition proceedings, including the award, were assailed by invoking the writ jurisdiction of
this Court, under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974.

2. It was argued that the proceedings were violative of mandatory provisions of sections 4 and 6,
Land Acquisition Act. The objections filed by the petitioner in the light of the provisions of
section 5-A, were not disposed of nor a report was submitted to the Government for its disposal.
Reference was made to the different correspondence between the Education Department,
Collector, Selection Committee, Commissioner, Revenue, as appended with the petition in the
shape of Annexures P/1 to P/20. Respondents Nos. 1 to 11 contested the claim of the petitioner
and supported the award of the Collector, respondent No. 1.

3. Mr. M.S. Tariq, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his respective arguments,
referred to PLD 1975 Pesh. 103; PLD 1972 Lahore 458; PLD 1971 SC 61 and 124; AIR 1959
Kerala 343 and AIR 1952 All. 752. Raja Muhammad Siddique Khan, the learned Counsel for the
opposite side emphasised that the provisions of sections 4, 5-A, 6 and 9, Land Acquisition Act,
were followed in letter and spirit. The acquisition proceedings were lawful. An opportunity of
hearing was provided to the petitioner. It was further argued that the petitioner has not come with
clean hands. He maliciously suppressed the leading facts. The award in dispute was made on
September 8,1992 and an application for copy of the award was moved by the petitioner on
September 16,1992. He had the knowledge of the award but in his writ petition instituted in this
Court on September 15, this aspect of the case was suppressed. The application was moved for
issuance of order of status quo. Thus status quo was ordered on October 8 when the petition was
admitted for regular hearing. Prior to that, a civil suit was instituted in respect of the impugned
proceedings, in the Court of Sub-Judge, Bhimber on August 25, 1992. The suit was got
dismissed on October 19, 1992, after the admission of the petition. This question of fact was also
suppressed in the petition.

4. The preliminary objection raised by Raja Muhammad Siddique Khan relating to conduct of
the petitioner, was not squarely denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, it was
explained that the civil suit was not deemed appropriate remedy, as such, it was got dismissed.
No explanation was furnished as to why the question of institution of civil suit was suppressed in
the petition. Likewise, no explanation was furnished for suppression of the fact of the award of
the Collector, made on September 8, 1992. The award, prima facie, reflects that it was made after
hearing the-parties. The objection, therefore, finds ample support from the record to believe that
the petitioner deliberately suppressed the material facts in the present case.
6. The object of notification under section 4, Land Acquisition Act, is to reflect the intention of
the Government to acquire the property for a public purpose. As a matter of fact, the notification
under section 4, is a public pronouncement by the appropriate Government, in respect of the land
needed for a public purpose. Secondly, the notification empowers the Departmental officers,
local authority or Company, as the case may be, to undertake survey and other incidental acts by
entering the land. The other condition precedent therein is that the notification has to be
published and its copies affixed at conspicuous place on the land to be acquired or at a
conspicuous place in the village where the land was situate. The Government may also adopt, in
that respect, some other prescribed manners, in order to bring the matter to the notice of the
public. Therefore, personal or individual service of notification under section 4, Land
Acquisition Act, is least insisted. In present case, the aforesaid conditions prescribed under
section 4, Land Acquisition Act, have been found fairly complied with. The fact that the
petitioner was not personally served, is not a legal defect in the publication of the notification
under section 4 of the Act and its display by affixing a copy on the conspicuous place on the land
under acquisition. It appears from the record that public was informed of the intention of the
Government, in accordance with law. The objection is, therefore, repelled.

8. Section 5-A, Land Acquisition Act postulates that on publication of notification under section
4(1), any interested person may file objections within' 30 days after the issue of the notification,
against the acquisition proceedings. The objections were to be made in writing, to the Collector.
On filing of such objection, it was enjoined upon the Collector to provide an opportunity of
hearing, either in person or by pleader, to the objector and after hearing such objections, and
making further inquiry, if any, his decision was to be submitted to the Government, along with
the record of the proceedings and report containing the recommendation on the objections. The
Government was next to give its decision on the objections referred to above. The decision of the
Government was final.

9. The object of the provisions of section 5-A was that no final acquisition should be made by the
Collector without giving owner of the land under acquisition, an opportunity to put forward his
objections to the proposed acquisition. The Government was to take a decision in the light of
such objections. These provisions safeguarded the interest of the owner of the land under
acquisition and afforded an opportunity to the Government to take a final decision in the light of
the true position of the property proposed to be acquired. Thus, a valid right was conferred on the
owner of the property under acquisition to object, if so desired, to the acquisition of land.

10. The inquiry conceived by section 5-A, Land Acquisition Act, was summary in. nature. No
formal procedure was prescribed. However, the Collector was under duty to hear the objectors
and to prepare a report in the light of the objections and submit the same to the Government for
its final decision. Such report provided an opportunity to the Government to decide whether
particular land was needed for a public purpose or for Company, or not. It also provided a
safeguard against an arbitrary and malicious action on the part of the authorities. The inquiry and
decision of the Government was an administrative act and not quasi-judicial. Be that as it may,
the principle of f natural justice was obviously applicable to the inquiry and decision of the
Government. The principle of law enunciated in Ram Charan Lal's case AIR 1952 All. 752 and
Lonappan's case AIR 1959 Kerala 343, is squarely applicable to the proposition under
consideration.