SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(AP) 55

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY
Jayaraman Ananthalakshmi rep.by the General Power of attorney Holder Shri m.Thimmaraja - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P.rep.by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department, secretariat, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 02-27-80

A Section 6 declaration published simultaneously with a Section 4 (1) notification is void, and a second declaration under Section 6 must be published within three years or one year, as the case may be, from the date of publication of the Section 4 (1) notification.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - SECTION 6 DECLARATION - LIMITATION - AMENDMENT ACT 13 OF 1967 - SECTION 6 DECLARATION PUBLISHED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH SECTION 4 (1) NOTIFICATION - VOID - SECOND DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6 - TO BE PUBLISHED WITHIN THREE YEARS OR ONE YEAR AS THE CASE MAY BE - CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE PUBLISHED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD - EARLIER NOTIFICATION WILL NOT SAVE LIMITATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the acquisition of land under Section 4 (1) notification on the ground that Section 6 declaration, if published beyond 3 years from the date of Section 4 (1) notification, would render the Section 4 (1) Notification void. Section 4 (1) and Section 6 along with Section 5-A notification were issued simultaneously on 15-3-79 and challenged in 1985.

Finding of the Court:

Section 6 declaration published simultaneously with Section 4 (1) notification is void. Second declaration under Section 6 must be published within three years or one year as the case may be, and it cannot be deemed to be published within the stipulated period though actually not, on the premise that there had been an earlier notification under Section 6.

Issues: Whether Section 6 declaration published simultaneously with Section 4 (1) notification is void?

Ratio Decidendi: The Amendment Act 13 of 1967 to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, mandates that Section 6 declaration must be made within three years from the date of Section 4 (1) notification for cases where Section 4 (1) notification was published up to 1967, and within one year for cases where Section 4 (1) notification was published after the amendment Act came into being. A simultaneous declaration under Section 6 with Section 4 (1) notification is void and must be set aside. A second declaration under Section 6 must be published within the stipulated period, and the earlier void declaration will not save limitation.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the Section 6 declaration was set aside. The authorities were not precluded from acquiring the land afresh by publishing a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) according to the rules.

A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS acquisition under Section 4 (1) notification is challenged on the ground that Section 6 declaration, if published beyond 3 years from the date of 4 (1) notification, and which now under the Amending Act, will render the very Section 4 (1) Notification void. The facts leading to this petition are : Section 4 (1) and Section 6 along with Section 5-A notification was simultaneously issued on 15-3-79 and that is challenged by the writ petitioners herein in the year 1985 on the ground that Section 6 declaration being simultaneous with Section 4 (1) notification is bad; no possession of the land has been taken over as yet and section 6 declaration which has now to be set aside, or then thereafter if it is published, it will be beyond three years from the date of Section 4 (1) notification,

( 2 ) THE petitioners happened to be the vendees from the original vendors in the year 1984. In fact this acquisition was earlier challenged by some other owners by filing writ petitions in this court challenging the validity of Section 4 (1) notification. Pending that writ petition, stay was granted by this Court in the year 1979 itself, that stay admittedly was confined in so far as the writ petitioners in that case was concerned, though the writ petition was dismissed but writ appeal against that is said to be pending.

( 3 ) THE main contention of Sri s. Parvatha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of the amended Act which came into being in the year 1967, Section 6 declaration, which is admittedly in this case was simultaneous with Section 4 (1) notification in the year 1979, must be held to be bad and then any declaration thereafter must be within three years in regard to all those cases wherein Section 4 (1) notification was published anterior to that Amending Act Reliance was placed on a couple of decisions, viz. , G S T corporation V. Valji Mulji (1) AIR 1980 sc 64 and A. N P. S Co-operative House building Society Ltd. vs. K. Balarami Reddy (2 ). AIR 1984 A. P 333.

( 4 ) THE counter contentions on behalf of the Agricultural Marketing committee, by the learned counsel, Sri. M. S. Prasad is that the land which was sought to be acquired for the purpose of markerting Committee was challenged in the year 1979 itself by various owners, though not the writ petitioners herein, and therefore no further proceedings including S. 6 declaration could have been issued. It is no doubt admitted by the learned counsel that the stay in those writ petitions, and the same now continues also in writ appeals, is restricted to those writ petitioners only.

( 5 ) THE second contention is that section 6 declaration which was published earlier along with Sec. 4 (1) notification, even if it is set aside, the same could be made again without any limitation period as has been held by a Full bench of the Madras High Court reported in K. C. Gounder v. Government of Tamil nadu (3) A I R 1980 Madras, 251 and it is especially of the case wherein it has been specifically held that section 6 declaration, if made once and if for one reason or the other the same is knocked out, in respect of the second declaration to be made under Section 6, will not be affected by the period of limitation, has neither been posed before the court on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on, nor, muchless the same has been adjudicated.

( 6 ) BEFORE analysing the question posed, the relevant statutory provision, in respect of the amendment that has been brought in on 20-1-67 to Section 6 by act 13 of 1967 is as under:"6 Declaration that land is required for a public purpose: (1) Where the appropriate Government or the District collector is satisfied that any particular land is needed for the purpose of construction, extension or improvement of any dwelling house for the poor, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such government or any other officer duly authorised to cer






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top