Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 The disputed land was acquired under the former Constitution of which s 16B (2) as amended provides as follows: “(a) All Agricultural land – (i) That was identified on or before the 8th July 2005, in the government Gazette or Gazette Extraordinary under section 5 (1) Of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10], and which is itemized in Schedule 7 being agricultural land required for resettlement purposes is acquired by and is vested in the State with full tittle therein with effect from the appointed date. ... (5) Any inconsistency between anything contained in – (a) a notice itemized in schedule 7 ; or (b) a notice relating to land referred to in subsection (2) (ii) OR (iii); and the tittle deed to which it refers or is intended to refer, and any error whatsoever contained in such notice, shall not affect the operation of subsection (2) (a) or invalidate the vesting of title in the State in terms of that provision.” The effect of the above section was to revive, resuscitate and validate the acquisition of all identified agricultural land listed in the 7th schedule for resettlement purposes prior to 8 July 2005 regardless of any errors or withdrawals in the acquisition process. No limitation can be imposed on the acquisition process once the land is shown to have been gazetted and listed in the 7th schedule prior to 8 July 2005. The language used in s 16B (2) of the former Constitution is clear and unambiguous admitting no ambivalent interpretation. The only meaning to be ascribed to the section is that once land is gazetted and listed in schedule 7 it automatically stands acquired by the State with full title by operation of law. The mere fact that the notice was at one time withdrawn or expired is irrelevant. 7