Exhaustion of land acquisition notification: successive Section 6 declarations cannot rest on the same Section 4(1) notice.

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 form an integrated scheme requiring the government, after considering objections, to decide once for all which particular land is needed. A Section 4(1) notification is exhausted when a Section 6 declaration is made, so the same notification cannot support successive Section 6 declarations for different portions of the same locality. The special provisions in Sections 17, 48 and 49 did not create any general power to do so; they operated only in their own limited situations. The impugned declaration was therefore invalid, and the point was decided against the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the appropriate government could issue successive declarations under Section 6 in respect of different portions of the same notified locality. (ii) Whether the special provisions in Sections 17, 48 and 49 supported the power to issue successive declarations under Section 6.

Issue (i): Whether, after a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the appropriate government could issue successive declarations under Section 6 in respect of different portions of the same notified locality.

Analysis: Sections 4, 5-A and 6 were held to form an integrated scheme. Section 4(1) notifies only the locality and sets in motion survey and objections. Section 5-A contemplates consideration of all objections and a single report by the Collector. After that, the government must make up its mind once for all and declare under Section 6 the particular land required. The notification under Section 4(1) was treated as exhausted once a declaration under Section 6 was made, and the Act was read as not treating Section 4(1) as a reservoir from which land could be drawn out piecemeal by successive declarations. The construction adopted was also supported by the principle that an expropriatory statute should be strictly construed.

Conclusion: Successive declarations under Section 6 after one Section 4(1) notification were not permissible. The point was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the special provisions in Sections 17, 48 and 49 supported the power to issue successive declarations under Section 6.

Analysis: The special urgency provisions in Section 17(4) were held to operate only in the special circumstances expressly provided for, and any possibility of more than one declaration in such cases flowed from the special provision itself, not from Sections 4, 5-A and 6. Section 48 was held to deal with withdrawal after the stage of notice under Section 9(1) and did not show that a notification under Section 4(1) remained alive for successive declarations. Section 49 likewise dealt with a special situation concerning acquisition of the whole land and could not be used to infer a general power to issue successive declarations.

Conclusion: Sections 17, 48 and 49 did not support the appellant's construction. The point was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme required one declaration under Section 6 following one notification under Section 4(1), and the impugned declaration was invalid because it was founded on an exhausted notification under Section 4(1).

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a notification under Section 4(1) is exhausted once the government, after considering objections under Section 5-A, makes a declaration under Section 6 specifying the particular land required; successive declarations under Section 6 cannot be issued on the basis of the same Section 4(1) notification except where a special statutory provision expressly permits it.

---