Land acquisition notification validity and local publication upheld; later purchasers cannot challenge acquisition after Section 4 notice.

The article states that a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is treated as published on the date it bears unless the statutory presumption of regularity is rebutted, and that local publication is satisfied where the record as a whole shows announcement in the locality. It further notes that later notifications did not supersede the earlier acquisition, that subsequent purchasers or collaborators could not challenge the acquisition after the Section 4 notice, and that differential release of parcels did not establish discrimination absent comparable facts. The older writ petitions therefore failed, while the connected writ on sewerage connectivity was disposed of with directions to remove the administrative impediment and take effective steps for redressal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Official Gazette on the date it bore; (ii) whether the substance of the notification was published in the locality as required by law; (iii) whether subsequent notifications issued in 1990 and 1995 superseded the earlier acquisition notifications; (iv) whether subsequent purchasers and collaborators were entitled to challenge the acquisition; and (v) whether differential release of certain parcels entitled the remaining landowners to similar release on the ground of discrimination.

Issue (i): whether the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Official Gazette on the date it bore.

Analysis: The question of publication in the Gazette was governed by the statutory presumption attached to official acts and official gazettes. The plea that the notification was ante-dated was examined against the official record and the surrounding circumstances. The Court held that the date appearing on the Gazette notification was the relevant date of publication and that the presumption of regularity remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The notification was held to have been validly published in the Official Gazette on 24 June 1980, against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether the substance of the notification was published in the locality as required by law.

Analysis: The mandatory local publication requirement under Section 4 was considered in the light of the patwari's daily diary entry, the objections filed by several landowners, and the limited evidentiary value of the statement recorded from the patwari without cross-examination. The Court held that the material on record, taken as a whole, established that the substance of the notification had been announced in the locality and that the statutory requirement stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The local publication requirement was held to have been complied with, against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): whether subsequent notifications issued in 1990 and 1995 superseded the earlier acquisition notifications.

Analysis: The later notifications were examined in the context of the earlier acquisition, the interim stay operating against dispossession, and the limited scope of the authorities relied upon for the proposition that a later notification automatically supersedes an earlier one. The Court held that the earlier notifications were not displaced as a matter of law on the facts of the case, and that the later notifications were issued to proceed with acquisition of other lands and not to annul the earlier acquisition.

Conclusion: The subsequent notifications were held not to supersede the earlier notifications, against the petitioners.

Issue (iv): whether subsequent purchasers and collaborators were entitled to challenge the acquisition.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that a person who acquires interest in land after issuance of the acquisition notification takes subject to the acquisition and cannot impeach the acquisition proceedings, though such person may be entitled to compensation in appropriate cases. On that basis, the challenge by purchasers and collaborators was rejected.

Conclusion: Subsequent purchasers and collaborators were held not entitled to challenge the acquisition, against them.

Issue (v): whether differential release of certain parcels entitled the remaining landowners to similar release on the ground of discrimination.

Analysis: The Court found that the lands released earlier were not shown to be identically situated with the lands in question and that the planning differences between the sectors and pockets provided a rational basis for the distinction. The plea of arbitrary pick-and-choose treatment was rejected for want of a comparable factual foundation.

Conclusion: No enforceable claim to release on the ground of discrimination was made out, against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition challenge in the older writ petition and the connected writ petition failed, while the later writ petition concerning sewerage connectivity was disposed of with directions to remove the administrative impediment and take effective steps for redressal.

Ratio Decidendi: In acquisition matters, the date borne by a Gazette notification is treated as its publication date unless rebutted by reliable evidence, the statutory local publication requirement is satisfied by proved announcement in the locality, and a later purchaser or collaborator cannot defeat acquisition proceedings merely by acquiring interest after the Section 4 notification.

---