W. P. No. 997 of 1992

6th August, 1992.

Petitioner Counsel: D. K. Deshmukh
Respondent Counsel: M.. G. Bhangde, M. P. Badar

JUDGMENT

V. A. MOHTA, J. :- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. The petitioners have made a small but significant grievance in this petition. It pertains to the right of raising objection to the acquisition of rights in the lands under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (the Act).

3. Undisputed factual background is that the preliminary notification dated 14-9-1988 under section 4 of the Act about intention to prospect coal in the area was published in the Official Gazette on 8-10-1988. Upon satisfaction that coal was obtainable in the lands, notice of intention to acquire the rights in the lands was given by issuing a notification under section 7 of the Act on 7-10-1991 in the Official Gazette. Before issuing the notification, statutory period of two years referred to in section 7 was raised to permissible outer limit of three years by a notification dated 23-7-1990.

4. No personal notice of this intention was served on the petitioners. Due publication of notice by proclaiming it by beat of drums on or near the area and by affixing a copy of it on some conspicuous place on or near the area, as required under Rule 3 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Rules, 1957 (the Rules) was made on 15-4-1992. Objection to the acquisition under section 8 of the Act filed thereafter was considered as beyond statutory period of 30 days of the notification and hence this petition.

5. Section 8 of the Act reads thus :

8. (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land.

Rule 3 reads thus :

3. Mode of service or notice or order. - (1) Any notice or order required to be served under the Act, if of a general nature or affecting a number of persons, shall be published in the Official Gazette and the due publication of such notice or order shall also be given by proclaiming it by beat of drum on or near the area and by affixing a copy of it on some conspicuous place on or near the area.

6. Section 8 states that the objections have to be filed within 30 days of the "issue of the notification". Rules have been framed under section 27 of the Act. They have a definite purpose. The clear purpose of Rule 3 is to see that the land owners are really aware of the intention of the Government to acquire the land or some rights therein. Deemed notice by mere publication in the Official Gazette has not been rightly considered as sufficient. India is an illiterate country. Acquisition mostly pertains to rural areas. Notifications are galore. Such deemed notice may not be sufficient even for the most uptodate literate person. Locating a notification is not a matter of mere art but of science. It is in this hard reality that Rule 3 will have to be interpreted and interpretation will have to be contextual and object oriented. Moreover word "shall" not "may" is used in the Rule.

7. In this background, it cannot be said that for the purpose of section 8 notification under section 7 has been issued before 15-4-1992. Starting point of limitation will, therefore, be 15-4-1992 and not 7-10-1991. Our attention was rightly invited to the following observations in the case of Govind Lal Chhagan Lal Patel vs. Agriculture Produce Market Committee and another, AIR 1976 SC 263, though they are made in the context of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1964 :

"Publication of the notification in the Official Gazette was evidently thought by the Legislature not an adequate means of communicating the Director's intention to those who would be vitally affected by the proposed declaration and who would therefore be interested in offering their objections and suggestions. It is a matter of common knowledge that publication in a newspaper attracts greater public attention than publication in the Official Gazette. That is why the Legislature has taken care to direct that the notification shall also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper. A violation of this requirement is likely to affect valuable rights of traders and agriculturists because in the absence of proper and adequate publicity, their right of trade and business shall have been hampered without affording to them an opportunity which the statute clearly deems so desirable."

The principle underlying the above ratio will apply on all the fours to the matter at hand.

8 Under the circumstances, we direct the respondent No. 2 to permit the petitioners to file the objection within 30 days from today (i. e. on or before 5-9-1992) since interim order of stay is operating from 29-4-1992. We clarify that in case the objections do not reach respondent No. 2 on or before 5-9-1992, the respondent No. 2 will be free to proceed on the basil that no objections are raised.

9. Petition allowed. Rule absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

Petition allowed