Mandatory local publication and legal mala fides can invalidate land acquisition when statutory power is used for an extraneous purpose.

Failure to give local public notice of the substance of a Section 4(1) acquisition notification was treated as a mandatory defect, not a mere irregularity, and it vitiated the acquisition because the statutory notice scheme required both Gazette publication and locality notice. The fact that objections were filed did not cure the omission. The acquisition was also held vulnerable as a colourable exercise of power: the stated public purpose was found to be illusory, and the power was used for an extraneous object, amounting to legal mala fides without requiring proof of personal ill-will. On both grounds, the acquisition was invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to cause public notice of the substance of the Section 4(1) notification to be given at convenient places in the locality vitiated the acquisition proceedings; (ii) Whether the acquisition was invalid as a colourable exercise of power founded on legal mala fides.

Issue (i): Whether failure to cause public notice of the substance of the Section 4(1) notification to be given at convenient places in the locality vitiated the acquisition proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required not only publication of the notification in the Official Gazette but also local publicity of its substance in the concerned locality. The second requirement was treated as mandatory and not a mere formality. The record showed that, after the corrected notification and corrigendum, no public notice of the substance was published in the locality, and the defect was not cured by the fact that objections were in fact filed. The purpose of local publication was not confined to enabling objections under Section 5-A, but formed an integral part of the statutory notice scheme.

Conclusion: The failure to publish notice in the locality vitiated the acquisition proceedings and supported invalidation of the notification.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquisition was invalid as a colourable exercise of power founded on legal mala fides.

Analysis: The acquisition power could be exercised only for the public purpose for which it was conferred. On the facts, the asserted need for the land was found to be illusory, while the real object was to prevent the construction of a cinema theatre near the institution's . The material showed that the land acquisition machinery was invoked for an extraneous and irrelevant purpose, amounting to abuse of statutory power. In such a case, proof of personal ill-will was unnecessary; legal mala fides was established by the use of power for a purpose outside the statute.

Conclusion: The acquisition was vitiated by legal mala fides and was invalid as a colourable exercise of power.

Final Conclusion: The statutory notice defect remained fatal, and independently the acquisition failed for abuse of power; the challenge to the acquisition succeeded on the substantive grounds decided by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires both Gazette publication and local publication of the substance of a notification, compliance is mandatory, and an acquisition will also fail if the power is exercised for an extraneous purpose amounting to legal mala fides or colourable exercise of power.

---