IMPORTANT POINT
When notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition is quashed for not conducting enquiry under Section 5A and such enquiry was conducted, the running of limitation of one year under C1. (ii) to first proviso of Section 6(1) should be counted from the date of the order of the court received by-the LAO and declaration under Section 6 is published within one year from that date and when the court upholds the declaration at would relate back to date of publication under Section 4(1) of the Act.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) (for short, "the Act") acquiring total extent of 114 acres of land in Narayanpura Village in Bangalore District, Karnataka was published for public purpose, viz., Defence Research & Development Organisation, Government of India. The Government, exercising the power under Section 17(4), dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and the notification under Section 4(1) was accordingly published on January 22, 1987. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 was published on June 24, 1987.

3. The appellants had challenged the exercise of emergency power under Section 17(4) by filing W.P. No. 13316-20/1987 and batch in the High Court of Karnataka and the learned single Judge quashed the order of the Government dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A and directed as under :

"In the result these petitions are partly allowed and the declaration dated 24.6.1987 published in the Gazette dated 6.8.1987 made under Section 6(2) of the Act read with Section 17(1) of the Act as also that portion of the Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned and also the notice under Section 9(1) of the Act dated 12.8.1987 are quashed reserving liberty for the authorities to continue the acquisition proceedings from the stage of preliminary notification. The petitioners shall file their objections against the preliminary notification within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and they shall file their objections against the preliminary notification within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and they shall present themselves before the Land Acquisition Officer 3rd respondent on 15.7.1988 without awaiting any fresh notices from the said officer. The Land Acquisition Officer shall hold the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act expeditiously and complete the proceedings in accordance with law."

4. Thereafter, enquiry under Section 5A was conducted and declaration thereof was published on May 13, 1989. The validity of this declaration was again questioned in present Writ Petition No. 19245/89 and batch. The learned single Judge again allowed the writ petitions. The Division Bench by judgment dated April 22, 1993 in Writ Appeal No. 2189-97 of 1992 and batch allowed the appeals ; set aside the order of the learned single Judge and consequently upheld the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act.

5. The learned single Judge had quashed the notification in the first instance giving liberty to the Government to conduct an enquiry under Section 5A and it was accordingly completed within one year from the date of the judgment. Declaration under Section 6 was published. The declaration under Section 6 published in the first instance was within the period prescribed under proviso to Section 6(1). The Division Bench has held that after the declaration under Section 6 was quashed in the first instance, the limitation of one year does not apply. It further held that the view that the declaration under Section 6 is still required to be published from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) is not correct in law. It also found that since there was no evidence on record as to which was the last of the dates of the publications contemplated under Section 4(1), it could not be said that the limitation under Section 6 from that date is barred by limitation.

6. Shri Rama Jois, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that in view of the judgments of this Court in Oxford English School v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors1., and P. Chinnanna & Ors. v. State o/A.P. & Ors.2, the view of the High Court is not correct in law. It is further contended by Sri Naresh Kaushik that if the view of the High Court is upheld there would be two dates of notification under Section 4(1), namely, the notification as origina