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

1999 Supreme(Raj) 973

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.S.Chauhan, J.
Pukh Raj - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3032 of 1995.
Decided On : 5-03-1999

The limitation period for making the Section 6 declaration starts from the date of publication of the Section 4 notification in the official gazette.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - SECTION 6 DECLARATION - LIMITATION - PUBLICATION OF SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION - ESSENTIAL - SECTION 6 DECLARATION WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION - NOTICE ISSUED PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION - IRRELEVANT.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged land acquisition proceedings on the ground that declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made after the time limit fixed under the Act. The petitioner had purchased land from the Municipal Board in 1971, and the respondents issued notices for acquiring a part of that land in 1991. The petitioner filed objections to the notice, but the Declaration under section 6 of the Act was made in 1994, more than three years after the notice was issued.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Section 6 declaration was not barred by limitation. The publication of Section 4 notification in the official gazette is the actual publication, and any notice issued prior to that is irrelevant. The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support its decision.

Issues: Whether the Section 6 declaration was made within the time limit fixed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the limitation period for making the Section 6 declaration starts from the date of publication of the Section 4 notification in the official gazette. Any notice issued prior to that is irrelevant. The court also held that the publication of the substance of Section 4 notification in local newspapers prior to its publication in the official gazette is an irregularity but does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Section 6 declaration was not barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT

1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called "the Act"), has been made after the time limit fixed under the Act.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had purchased certain land from the Municipal Board, Sojat in 1971, being a strip of land lying adjacent to his house. The respondents issued certain notices on 4.3.1991 (Annexure-1) for acquiring a part of that land alongwith other land. Petitioner filed his objection to the said notice on 8.6.1992. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering his objections properly, the Declaration under section 6 of the Act has been made on 21.11.1994. The instant writ petition has been filed only on the ground that as Section 4 notice had been issued to the petitioner on 4.3.1991, Section 6 declaration could not have been made on 21.11.1994 after a lapse of three years and eight months. There is no other ground of challenge to the acquisition proceedings. The respondents have filed reply alongwith the copy of the notification under section 4 of the Act, stating that the notification was published in the Gazette first time on 25.5.1994 (Annexure.R. 5) and Section 6 declaration had been made on 21.11.1994, i.e., within a period of six months from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification and, therefore, acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged on this ground.

3. Mr. Choudhary has submitted that as the notice had been issued to the petitioner on 4.3.1991 the limitation, provided under section 6 i.e. one year from the date of publication of Section 4 notification, has to be calculated from 4.3.1991.

4. Section 6 declaration has to be made within one year from the date of "publication" of the notification under section 4 of the Act. In the instant case, the publication of Section 4 notification had, undoubtedly, been made on 25.5.1994. A Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1998 Raj. 202 , has considered this issue at great length and it has been held therein that the acquisition proceedings start from the date of publication of notification under section 4 in the Gazette and if any notice is issued prior to that by the authority, that is simply to be ignored as it is without any sanctity oer power/jurisdiction.

5. It is settled proposition of law that notification under section 4(1) of the Act is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further power under the Act. The process of acquisition starts with the notification under section 4(1) of the Act and, thus, the notification under section 4(1) is a sine qua non. Thus, where there is no notification under section 4, the machinery provided by the Act for any further action obviously cannot proceed. (Vide Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1203 ; Narendrajeet Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 1971 SC 306 ; Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2077 ; State of Bombay v. Chaturbhuj Nenshi, AIR 1966 Guj. 185 and Smt. Angira Devi Gupta v. Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 1986 Del. 40 .

6. In Khoob Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that as the Act provides for compulsory acquisition and deprive a person of his property, the provisions of the statute must be construed strictly.

7. Similarly, in Narendrajeet Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :

"Any notification which is the first step towards depriving a man of his property must be strictly construed and Courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring Authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a serious nature."

8. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1019 , while examining the requirement of publication of notification in the official gazetted under t












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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