IMPORTANT POINT
The notification u/s 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be published and the period of limitation of one year prescribed by proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the said Act does not apply for said publication.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 5A and 6 (as amended in 1984)-Proviso (ii) to Section 6(1)-Limitation of one year from the date of the publication of Section 4 notification -Section 4 notification dated 29.11.1987 published in Official Gazette on 28.1.1988 and published in newspaper on 23.2.88-Section 6 declaration made on 22.2.1989 but published in Official Gazette on 9.3.1989-Validity of the publication of the notification u/s. 6-Whether invalid because publication is barred by time-High Court holding No - Whether correct? (Yes)-Appeals dismissed-Khadim Hussain s case followed.
       Held : Declaration under Section 6 is preceded by issuance of a notification under Section 4 which indicates the intention of the Government to inter alia acquire land for a public purpose. Pursuant to the issuance of the same, objections can be filed and after hearing the same, Section 6(1) enables the appropriate authority if it is satisfied, after considering the report made under Section 5A of the Act, that if any particular land is needed for a public purpose, then a declaration is to be made under the signature of an appropriate officer. Where notification under Section 4 is published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, as in the present case, proviso (ii) requires that such a declaration shall not be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of Section 4 notification. We wish to clarify that the words "publish" and "from the date of publication of the notification" occurring in proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) refer to the publication of the Section 4 notification and have no reference to the publication of any notification under Section 6. Under Section 6(1), it is only a declaration which is required to be made, the time limit being within one year of the publication of the Section 4 notification. The main purpose for the issuance of a declaration under Section 6 is provided by sub-section (3), namely, that the declaration is conclusive evidence that the land is needed inter alia for a public purpose and after the making of the declaration the appropriate Government may acquire the land in the manner provided by the Act. Sub-section (2) requires the declaration to be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate and in addition thereto the Collector is also required to cause public notice of the substance of the declaration to be given in the convenient places in the said locality. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (2) of Section 6 does not prescribe any time limit within which the declaration made under Section 6(1) is to be published. It is well known that after an order or declaration is made there can be a time gap between the making of the order or a declaration and its publication in the Official Gazette. Whereas the time limit for the making of an order is provided under Section 6(1), the legislature advisedly did not provide for any time limit in respect of the steps required to be taken under sub-section (2) of Section 6. If the contention of Mr. G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel for the appellant is correct, the effect would be that not only the declaration would have to be published within the time prescribed under the proviso to Section 6(1) but all other steps, like publication in the daily newspaper and the Collector causing public notice of the declaration to be given at a convenient places in the locality, must also be completed within a period of one year of Section 4 notification. This could certainly not be a consequence contemplated by the legislature. As already observed, the purpose of Section 6 notification being to give a final declaration with regard to the need of the land for public purpose, the interest of the land owners was sufficiently safeguarded with the requirement of the making of the declaration under Section 6(1) within a prescribed period. It is difficult for us to read into sub-section (2) the provisions of the proviso to Section 6(1) which relate to the time limit for issuance of the notification under Section 6(1). (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
       Held finally : Following the decision of this Court in Khadim Hussain s case [1976(1) SCC 843] with which we agree, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-

C.A. No. 7077 of 2001 @ SLP (C) No. 22637 of 1997

Leave granted.

2. Whether the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") should be published within the period prescribed by the proviso to Section 6(1) of the said Act, is the only question which arises for consideration in this case.

3. The notification dated 29th November, 1987 was issued and published in the Official Gazette on 28th January, 1988. The same was published in the newspaper on 23rd February, 1988. This notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act wherein it was stated that the lands indicated in the Schedule thereto were intended to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of houses by the Karnataka Housing Board. Persons interested were informed that they could file objections to the proposed acquisition. This notification was published in the newspaper on 23rd February, 1988 whereafter objections were filed under Section 5A of the Act. On 22nd February, 1989 a declaration was made signed by the competent authority under Section 6(1) of the Act. It was stated therein that after verification of the Report of the Housing Commissioner and taking into consideration objections under Section 5A, it was declared that the lands specified in the Schedule thereto were acquired for the public purpose for construction of different categories of houses by Karnataka Housing Board. This declaration which was dated 22nd February, 1989 was published in the Official Gazette on 9th March, 1989.

4. The appellant herein challenged the validity of the notification under Section 6 primarily on the ground that this notification was barred by time. It was contended by the learned counsel that the notification under Section 6(1) had to be issued within one year of the publication of Section 4 notification and this not having been done the said notification was liable to be quashed. The Single Judge of the High Court did not accept this argument. It was observed that the declaration was made within one year under Section 6(1) on 22nd February, 1989. The said Section 6 did not provide for any period of limitation within which the declaration had to be published and, therefore, once the declaration was made within the prescribed period, the notification was valid. The writ appeal met with no success. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

5. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that on a correct interpretation of Section 6, the declaration which was issued has to be published within one year of the publication of Section 4 notification.

6. Section 6 reads as follows:

"6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, [when the (appropriate Government) is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect, of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-section (2)];

[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section (1)-

(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition Act (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or

(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1363

IMPORTANT POINT The notification u/s 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be published and the period of limitation of one year prescribed by proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the said Act does not apply for said publication.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
The notification u/s 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be published and the period of limitation of one year prescribed by proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the said Act does not apply for said publication.