Valid Initiation of Acquisition Proceedings Upheld Despite Timing Challenges

The court held that the acquisition proceedings were validly initiated despite challenges regarding the timing of Gazette publication and notices to the occupier. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements for publication. It clarified that objections by affected parties do not impact the authority's jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeals, dismissed cross-objections, and made no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initiation of acquisition proceedings due to the timing of the Gazette publication.
2. Validity of the acquisition proceedings due to the timing of the locality notice and individual notice to the occupier.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Initiation of Acquisition Proceedings Due to the Timing of the Gazette Publication:
The Tribunal invalidated the acquisition proceedings on the grounds that the notice for the acquisition of the property, though published in the Central Government Gazette on August 31, 1974, could not have been immediately available to the interested or affected persons. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in U.S. Awasthi v. IAC [1977] 107 ITR 796, which held that the publication of the notification was complete only when the Gazette containing the notification in question became available to the public.

However, the court disagreed with this view, citing the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George [1965] 35 Comp Cas 557, which established that if the statute prescribes a mode of publication and that mode is adopted, it cannot be argued that there is no publication merely because it was not brought to the actual notice of the affected persons. The court emphasized that the requirement under Section 269D(1) of the Income Tax Act is the publication of a notice in the Official Gazette within nine months from the end of the month in which the sale deed was registered, and this requirement was met.

The court concluded that the Tribunal was incorrect in holding that the initiation of acquisition proceedings was not valid due to the timing of the Gazette publication. The publication in the Official Gazette on August 31, 1974, was deemed sufficient for the initiation of the acquisition proceedings.

2. Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings Due to the Timing of the Locality Notice and Individual Notice to the Occupier:
The Tribunal also invalidated the acquisition proceedings on the grounds that the locality notice and the individual notice to the occupier were published and served respectively beyond the period of limitation of 45 days prescribed under Section 269E of the Act. The Tribunal held that this non-compliance with the conditions precedent for the initiation of acquisition proceedings rendered the proceedings invalid.

However, the court referred to its earlier decision in CIT v. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel [1979] 118 ITR 134, which held that the service of the individual notice or publication of the locality notice are not conditions precedent for the initiation of acquisition proceedings. The court clarified that the limitation for filing objections by the interested or affected persons does not affect the jurisdiction of the competent authority to initiate acquisition proceedings. The interested or affected persons can file their objections within 45 days from the date of the actual or constructive notice of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings.

The court, therefore, disagreed with the Tribunal's view that the late publication of the locality notice and the individual notice to the occupier invalidated the acquisition proceedings. The court held that the Tribunal's decision on this ground was not correct.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeals, holding that the acquisition proceedings were validly initiated and that the Tribunal was incorrect in invalidating the proceedings on the grounds of the timing of the Gazette publication and the locality notice. The cross-objections filed by the respondent were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

---