Mandatory preliminary notice requirement under land acquisition law invalidates acquisition when not properly published

Compulsory acquisition powers are to be strictly construed, and the requirement to publish the substance of the preliminary notification at convenient places in the locality operates as a mandatory condition precedent to lawful entry and survey. The notice under the preliminary stage serves to inform the owner before entry, while the later notice under the separate provision serves a different purpose by disclosing particulars of the land proposed for acquisition. Because the statutory language and consequences of non-compliance showed the notice requirement was not merely directory, failure to comply invalidated the acquisition proceedings and the awards founded on them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the requirement under section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 that public notice of the substance of the preliminary notification be given at convenient places in the locality was mandatory and, if so, whether non-compliance rendered the acquisition proceedings void and entitled the appellants to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory power of compulsory acquisition was held to require strict construction. The direction in section 4 that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places was treated as a condition precedent to the lawful exercise of the power of entry and survey under section 4(2). The object of that notice was distinct from the later notice under section 5(2), since section 4 was meant to inform the owner before entry on the land, whereas section 5(2) served to disclose the particulars of the land proposed to be acquired. The use of mandatory language and the consequences of non-compliance showed that the provision could not be treated as merely directory. The objection was not barred as belated, because the appellants had questioned jurisdiction from the outset and sought constitutional relief after the awards came to their knowledge.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with the section 4 notice requirement invalidated the acquisition proceedings, and the appellants were entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings and the awards based on them could not be sustained, and the appellants succeeded in obtaining writ relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute conferring compulsory acquisition power uses mandatory language for a notice designed as a condition precedent to entry and survey, non-compliance renders the ensuing acquisition proceedings void.

---