TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (11) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder S. 5 on November 30, 1964. (2) Aggrieved by this action of the Government the petitioners brought a writ petition on January 30, 1968 (C.W. No. 123 of 1968). Their main complaint in that case was that no notification under S. 6 of the Act could be issued without hearing them on their objections as required by the mandatory provisions of S. 5-A of the Act. The Government realised its mistake. Accordingly, on December 9, 1968, the Government made an application to the court (CM 2522- J of 1968). This application was styled as one under s. 151, Code of Civil Procedure. In this application it 'was conceded that "no notice was issued to the petitioners for hearing of those objections and the mandatory provisions of S. 5-A of the Land....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e recommended that the objections of the petitioners dated May 15, 1964 may be dismissed. The report of the Collector, it is said, was placed before the Lt. Governor through Mr. R. C. Mathur. (7) On January 15, 1969, a notification dated January 11, 1969, was published in the Official Gazette Extraordinary Part IV. It was captioned as a 'corrigenda'. There it was said that the petitioners' lands measuring 117 bighas--3 biswas out of the total area of 194 bighas- 19 biswas and bearing field Nos. 354, 355, 357, 358 and 359 arc "hereby deleted". The result of this notification was that the original notification dated November 30, 1964, under s. 6 stood cancelled in respect of the field numbers specified in the notification. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vember 30, 1964 under s. 6 of the Act stood cancelled and therefore between January 11, 1969 and January 20, 1969 it was open to the Government to do both the things-hear the petitioners on their objections under s. 5-A as well as issue a fresh declaration under s. 6 of the Act. (10) In this connection January 20, 1969, is a significant date. Under the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act 1967, the Government had at its disposal a period of 2 years within which to issue a fresh notification under s. 6. That period began with the ordinance which was promulgated on January 20, 1967 and ended on January 20, 1969. This explains the undue haste and the anxiety of the Government to do everything within the short time at its disposal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The conclusion therefore is that the hearing said to have been given under s. 5-A was no hearing in the eye of law. It must therefore necessarily follow that the fresh notification issued on January 16, 1969 under s. 6 was invalid. The fact remains that there is no notification today under s. 6 which can be said to be valid. (14) S. 6(2) of the Act requires that every declaration under that section shall be published in the official gazette. Now the Government wanted to rescind its earlier notification dated November 30, 1964 because of its invalidity. They could do it in the like manner, namely, by issuing a notification in the official gazette. Clearly they had the power. The power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. Provisions of S. 5-A are mandatory and a declaration made under s. 6 without compliance with the provisions of S. 5-A is invalid. I would in the circumstances of this case hold that there was a denial of opportunity and non-compliance of the provisions of S. 5-A. This conclusion appears to me inescapable. (18) Mr. Nanda submits that it was not necessary for the Government to communicate to the petitioners the cancellation of the earlier notification under s. 6 as it was made known to them by the application dated December 9, 1968 moved in the earlier writ proceedings and the order dated January 10, 1969 shows it. I do not agree. There is nothing in the application dated December 9, 1968 and the order of V. S. Deshpande, J. dated Jan....