Important Point
Stay of dispossession granted by Court while considering challenge to Section 4 notification would amount to stay as contemplated by Explanation I to Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -Section 6 Explanation I-Quashing of notification u/s 6 of the Act on ground that it was issued beyond one year from the date of publication of Section 4 notification - Appeal - Section 4 notification was published on 27th May, 1993 -Section 6 notification was gazetted on 8th June, 1994-Respondents had challenged Section 4 notification before High Court-Dispossession of respondents was stayed till final decision on written objections of writ petitioners was taken-Period during which there was stay of dispossession i.e. from 2nd July 1993 to 18th January 1994 was to be excluded - Section 6 notification could not be said to be beyond permissible period.
       Held : Explanation I to Section 6 is couched in very wide terms. It states that the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4(1) is stayed by an order of a court that period is to be excluded. It is not disputed that the proceedings under Section 5A is also pursuant to Section 4(1) notification. Secondly the direction of the Court is that possession should not be taken till enquiry under Section 5A is held and objections are considered which would amount to stay of further proceedings pursuant to Section 4 notification after Section 5A enquiry. It was obviously an order of competent court. It has been held by this Court vide [(1994) 4 SCC 145] Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka & Ors.; [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 423] Government of T.N. & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai; and [(1997) 9 SCC 128] Venkataswamappa v. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), that even stay of dispossession granted by the Court while considering challenge to Section 4(1) notification would amount to stay as contemplated by Explanation I to Section 6. Consequently, it has to be held that the period during which there was stay of dispossession, i.e., from 2nd July 1993 to 18th January 1994 amounting to almost 6 months is to be excluded and consequently, issuance of Section 6 notification on 20th May 1994 cannot be said to be beyond the permissible period as per Explanation I to Section 6. The first contention raised by Shri Poti, learned senior counsel for the appellants, therefore, has to be accepted. It is held that the High Court had erred in taking the view that Section 6 notification was beyond the permissible period of one year as contemplated by Section 6. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours the wider question whether the period of one year is to be considered in the light of date of Section 6 notification, i.e., 20th May 1994 or its publication in the Gazette on 8th June 1994 would pale into insignificance and it is not necessary for us to consider that wider question. (Para 6)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -Section 6-Notification quashed on ground that enquiry u/s 5A of the Act was not conducted by authorities - Rejoinder submitted before Supreme Court which could not be effectively countered showing that full opportunity was given to respondents on their written objections-Notification could not have been quashed. (Para 9)

Order

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

2. A short question in this appeal that arises for consideration is as to whether the High Court in the impugned judgment was justified in quashing the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) on two counts-(i) that it was issued beyond one year from the date of publication of Section 4 notification; and (ii) that enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was not conducted by the authorities before issuance of Section 6 notification.

3. So far as the first contention is concerned, learned senior counsel, Shri Poti, vehemently contended that the said ground is not sustainable on the facts of this case. He submitted that Section 4 notification was published on 27th May 1993 while Section 6 notification was gazetted on 08th June 1994. Therefore, apparently it appeared to be beyond one year from the date of publication of Section 4 notification. However, he invited our attention to an earlier decision in this case of the High Court of Kerala in a writ petition numbered as O.P. No. 8235 of 1995-E. The said writ petition was filed by the present respondents challenging Section 4 notification before the High Court at that stage. Their contention was that Section 4(1) notification should not be followed by Section 6 notification without giving an opportunity to the respondents to have their say under Section 5A of the Act. That writ petition was heard by Justice P.A. Mohammed in the Kerala High Court on 02nd July 1993 and was allowed. Learned Judge noted that the writ petitioner, i.e., the present respondent No. 2 had expressed her readiness to surrender the remaining portion of the land since she also preferred to have an Industrial . .

Training Institute in the locality and her claim for exemption of 55 cents of land just on the side of the road was required to be enquired into by the District Collector. This contention was accepted by the learned Judge by its judgment dated 2nd July 1993 and in the penultimate paragraph of the said judgment learned Judge directed that till final decision is taken in Ext. P.3 (written objections) the writ petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the disputed land. It was further pointed out by Shri Poti, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that the final decision on the objections was taken by the authorities on 18th January 1994 when the District Collector forwarded the objections with recommendations to the Board of Revenue. Therefore, the period from 2nd July 1993 when the learned Single Judge delivered the judgment till at least 18th January 1994 amounting to almost six months ought to be excluded under Explanation I to Section 6 of the Act for computing the period of one year for issuance of the Section 6 notification. Accordingly Section 6 notification can be said to be within time. Explanation I to Section 6 of the Act reads as under:

“In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4, sub-section (1), it stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.”

4. On the second point, Shri Poti, submits that it is of course true that in the counter before the High Court a general statement was made the objections under Section 5A were considered. But in the present proceedings he has produced sufficient material to show that in the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act after the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court full opportunity was given to the respondents to have their say concerning the objections and they were heard through their counsel and not only that they had also addressed written representation to the Chief Minister wherein they had also admitted that hearing was given to them by the Collector but they did not expect any favourable response from the Collector. It was, therefore,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 206

Important PointStay of dispossession granted by Court while considering challenge to Section 4 notification would amount to stay as contemplated by Expla­nation I to Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.

Cases Referred (3)

Important Point
Stay of dispossession granted by Court while considering challenge to Section 4 notification would amount to stay as contemplated by Explanation I to Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.