Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was invalid for failure to specify the locality and for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act, and whether the defect could be cured by the later notification under Section 6(1).
Analysis: The process of acquisition must commence with a valid notification under Section 4(1), which is a condition precedent even in urgent cases. The statutory scheme requires the Government to specify the locality in which the land is needed, and a notification that merely refers to the land in the schedule without adequate particulars does not satisfy this requirement. A serious defect in the initial notification cannot be cured by supplying particulars later in a Section 6(1) notification, because the first step towards depriving a person of property must be strictly construed. Section 17 only permits the State to dispense with Section 5A in urgent cases; it does not authorise omission of Section 4(1).
Conclusion: The Section 4(1) notification was invalid, the acquisition proceedings were bad, and the defect was not cured by the Section 6(1) notification.
Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded and the High Court's judgment was set aside, with the acquisition notifications held unsustainable.