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
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.
"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."
Collector (District Magistrate)
I.T.C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise
Khoob Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1074
Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1019
Pankaj Jain Agency v. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 198
Smt. Angira Devi Gupta v. Land Acquisition Collector AIR 1986 Del. 40
State of Bombay v. Chaturbhuj Nenshi AIR 1966 Guj. 185
State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi AIR 1976 SC 2547
Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1985) 4 SCC 369
Venkataswamappa v. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) AIR 1997 SC 503
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.