Judgment:
R.K. Patra, J.
1. By this petition-under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sri Jagannath Ballav Math Endowment Trust Board through its Executive Officer seeks to assail the validity of the notification dated 21-8-1989 published in the Official Gazette dated 29-8-1989 (Annexure-3) under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by which the Government of Orissa in the Revenue and Excise Department has declared acquisition of land measuring Ac. 0.890 decimals situated at Chudanga Sahi in the town of Puri for public purpose i.e. construction of a modern Gymnasium and Sports hostel.
2. The petitioner claims to be a public endowment located at Dandimala Sahi of Puri town. It owns properties for the benefit of the endowment within the Puri town including Ac. 22.110 decimals of land wherein the math, its temple and garden are located. The petitioner's institution is closely connected with the seva puja of Lord Jagannath and various functions like Chandan Jatra, Nrusingha Chaturdasi, Ashokastami, Rama Navami etc. are observed there. On these festive occasions, representative of Lord Jagannath in the form of 'Chalanti Pratima' is brought to the math and different formalities like offering of 'Panti Bhog' are performed. The petitioner challenges the impugned notification on various grounds which would be hereinafter mentioned.
3. The opposite parties have filed counter affidavit justifying the acquisition of the land in question. According to them the land in question is urgently required for construction of Gymnasium and Sports Hostel in Puri town. Petitioner's Trust Board in its meeting held on 12-4-1987 (Annexure-A) agreed to alienate Ac. O.717 decimals of land provided recourse was taken to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Government in the Department of Tourism, Sports and Culture in letter No. 5827 dated 20-7-1988 (Annexure-B) and Director, Sports in his letter No. 9169 dated 30-7-1988 (Annexure-C) recommended to acquire the land by adopting the emergency clause because at the moment, the sports hostel at Puri is housed in a rented building and on a consideration of it, the government issued notification dated 12-1-1989 under Section 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Those two notifications were published in the extraordinary Gazette dated 24-1-1989 (Annexure-D). It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that the notifications were published in the two daily newspapers the 'Dinalipi' and the 'Pragatibadi' on 20-1-1989 and 21-1-1989 respectively. Public notice of the substance of the notifications was also given at convenient places in the concerned locality on 27-5-1989 (Annexure-E). Declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was made by the notification dated 21-8-1989 which was published in the Gazette dated 29-8-1989 (Annexure-3). The said declaration was also published in two local newspapers the 'Sambad' and the 'Swadhikar' on 1-9-1989 and 28-8-1989 respectively. The public notice of the declaration was given at convenient places in the concerned locality on 19-9-1989. It is the specific stand of the opposite parties that all the requirements as provided under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were duly complied with and the emergency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was applied since the sports hostel at Puri is functioning in a rented building.
4. Shri Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, first submitted that there is a clear government policy that properties belonging to religious institutions should not be acquired and the impugned acquisition having been made contrary to the said policy, the same is null and void. In this connection, he has referred to the notification No. 84756-LA-68/79, Misc. R. dated 28-11-79 of the Government in the Revenue Department. Paragraph 3 of the said notification states as follows:
'Religious institutions, including temples,shrines, churches, mosques, consecratedgrounds, grave-yards, etc. are commonlyheld in high esteem and are consideredsacrosanct by all concerned irrespective oftheir religious faith, religious pursuits andreligious following. It is the intention of StateGovernment that as far as practicable suchlands of religious sanctity should be avoidedfor purposes of land acquisition for publicpurpose'.
We have carefully perused the entire notification and we do not find anything therein to hold that the government have taken policy decision not to acquire properties belonging to religious institutions at all. What has been decided by the government is that acquisition, of properties for public purpose belonging to religious institutions as far as paracticable should be avoided. We accordingly do not read in the said notification any restraint on the exercise of power by the State Government to acquire properties belonging to religious institutions for public purpose. There can be no dispute that the land in question has been acquired for public purpose. As there is public purpose behind the acquisition of the land, the impugned notification cannot be voided merely because the property belongs to a religious institution.
5. It was next contended that with the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act there being no simultaneous giving of public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality, the acquisition is vitiated. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on a Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gowri Bheemappa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 Andh Pra 85. This decision supports the contention of the petitioner in view of the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 24-1-1989 and substance of the said notification was given in the locality on 27-5-1989. In Gowri Bheemappa (supra) there was gap of six months between the publication of Section 4(1) notification and giving of public notice of the substance of the said notification in the locality. The Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narinderjit Singh v. The State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 552 invalidated the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on the ground the said notification was not immediately followed by publication of the substance of the notification in the locality. The case of Narinderjit Singh (supra) came to be noticed by the Supreme Court subsequently in Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1984 SC 1721. Justice Chinnappa Reddy speaking for the Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment observed that the question whether the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the official Gazette and giving of public notice of the substance of the said notification in the locality had to be simultaneous or whether there could be gap of time was not an issue at all in Narinderjit Singh (supra). In that very paragraph, their Lordships after noticing another observation of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Abdul Rajak, AIR 1973 SC 2361 made to the effect that if the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is not accompanied or immediately followed by public notice, a person interested in the property in question cannot be held to have knowledge of the proposed acquisition held that the sentence 'both things have to be simultaneously done under Section 4(1)' occurring in Narinderjit Singh's case have led some confusion in some decisions of the High Courts. Their Lordships accordingly clarified and explained the position by stating that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that every time-gap between the publication in the Gazette and the public notice in the locality is fatal to the acquisition, the reason being apart from the physical impossibility of synchronising publication in the Gazette and the public notice in the locality, there could be variety of circumstances which might bring about the time-gap between the two. In view of the aforesaid legal position clarified by the Supreme Court in Deepak Pahwa (supra) the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gowri Bheemappa (supra) is not available to be pressed into service by the petitioner. We, therefore, cannot invalidate Section 4(1) notification merely because there was time-gap in its publication in the official Gazette and giving of public notice of the substance of the said notification in the locality.
6. The learned counsel also contended that there was no proper service of public notice in the locality. We do not find any substance in this contention. Section 4(1) of the Act requires the notification to be published in official Gazette and also giving of public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the concerned locality. Annexure-E indicates that the substance of the notification was given by way of public notice in the concerned locality. It was a notice to all and sundry. There is nothing in Section 4(1) of the Act requiring service of separate notice to every person interested in the land.
7. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no urgency for invoking the emergency power by dispensing with the enquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act in as much as the State Government took seven months in publication of the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act after the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act with direction under Section 17(4) dispensing with the Section 5A inquiry. According to the learned counsel, this delay of seven months strikes at the root of the plea of urgency for acquisition taken by the State Government. In support of this submission, he placed reliance oh a Bench decision of this Court in Chandramani Sahu v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 Orissa 205 wherein it has been held that delay of issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the Act may defeat plea of existence of emergency in absence of satisfactory explanation. In the counter affidavit filed in the present case, the opposite parties have stated that after the issue of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 12-1-1989, steps were taken to check the kisan of the land and to ascertain existence of structure well, trees, if any, on the land by making spot visit. Sale statistics was collected from the Registration Office for fixing of market value of the land. After fixation of market value draft declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act along with estimate of cost of the land acquisition was sent to the concerned quarters in letter No. 285-288 dated 7-3-1989. The Administrative Department in its turn sanctioned the land acquisition estimate and communicated the sanction order in letter No. 3057 dated 27-3-1989 to the Revenue Department. There was some doubt on the land acquisition estimate for which the Revenue Department sought clarification in letter No. 39598 dated 4-7-1989. The clarifications were complied with in letter No. 1131 dated 31-7-1989. From the aforesaid averments, it is clear that the delay was caused for complying certain formalities which were absolutely necessary for publication of declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act and the authorities dealt with the matter as expeditiously as possible. The delay of seven months having been satisfactorily explained by the opposite parties, the acquisition cannot be quashed.
8. All the points urged on behalf of the petitioner have failed. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
G.B. Patnaik, J.
9. I agree.