Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice Venkataswami and The Honourable Mr. Justice Abdul Hadi
The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Madras- 9 and another - Appellant
Versus
S.Jayaraman - Respondents
W.A.No.946 of 1991
Decided On : 09 December 1991
LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLICATION OF NOTIFICATION - DATE OF PUBLICATION - INTERPRETATION OF SEC.4(1) AND SEC.6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE: THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION IN CONVENIENT PLACES OF THE LOCALITY IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION IN SEC.4(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR CONTEMPLATED UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF PROVISO TO SUB-SEC.(1) OF SEC.6 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS WHETHER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (II) OF THE PROVISO SUB-SEC.(1) OF SEC.6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (THE ACT) IS THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, OR THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION IN TWO DAILY NEWSPAPERS CIRCULATING IN THE LOCALITY, OR THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION AT CONVENIENT PLACES IN THE LOCALITY.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION IN CONVENIENT PLACES OF THE LOCALITY IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION IN SEC.4(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR CONTEMPLATED UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF PROVISO TO SUB-SEC.(1) OF SEC.6 OF THE ACT.
Issues: THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS WHETHER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (II) OF THE PROVISO SUB-SEC.(1) OF SEC.6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (THE ACT) IS THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, OR THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION IN TWO DAILY NEWSPAPERS CIRCULATING IN THE LOCALITY, OR THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION AT CONVENIENT PLACES IN THE LOCALITY.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT INTERPRETED SEC.4(1) AND SEC.6 OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE WORDS ‘THE LAST OF THE DATES OF SUCH PUBLICATION AND THE GIVING OF SUCH PUBLIC NOTICE, BEING HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION’ INTRODUCED IN SEC.4(1) BY CENTRAL 68 OF 1984, WILL ONLY MEAN THAT THE DATE ON WHICH PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION IS GIVEN AT CONVENIENT PLACES IN THE LOCALITY IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION IN SEC.4(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR CONTEMPLATED UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF PROVISO TO SUB-SEC.(1) OF SEC.6 OF THE ACT.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JUDGE, AND DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION.
Venkataswami, J.: This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned W.P.No.14480 of 1990, dated 15.2.1991.
2. The only question that arises for our consideration in this writ appeal is, what the date of the publication of the Notification for the purpose of Clause (ii) of the Proviso sub-sec.(1) of Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’)? the date of publication of the 4(1) Notification in the Official Gazette, or can it be date of publication of the 4(1) Notification in two daily newspapers circulating, in the as required in that section, or from the date of publication notice of the substance Notification at convenient places in the locality. We are concerned with Sections as by Central Act 68 of 1984.
3. The admitted facts are the following: In this case, the Notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act dated 21.4.1989 was published Official Gazette on 17.5.1989. The publication of the Notification in the daily 19.5.1989. However, the substance of the same was published in convenient place locality only on 5.7.1989. The declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was published on It is common ground that if the date of publication of Sec.4(1) notification is to be from the date of publication of the same in the Official Gazette, then the declaration Sec.6 of the Act is barred under Clause (ii) of Proviso to sub-sec(1) of Sec.6 of the other hand, if the time is to reckon from the date of public notice of the substance 4(1) Notification in convenient places of the locality, the declaration is in time.
4. Mishra, J. was of the view that the time has to be reckoned from the date of publication Sec.4(1) Notification in the Official Gazette, and in so doing, the declaration being time, quashed the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the above decision the learned Judge, the Government have preferred this appeal.
5. Mr.M.A.Sadanand, learned Government Pleader, after referring to Secs.4(1) and Act, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984, and in particular, inviting our attention amendment to Sec.4(1) by Central Act 68 of 1984, submitted that the view taken learned Judge is contrary to the view expressed by Mohan, J., as he then S.Vellaikkan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1988 Writ.L.R. 22, and requires reconsideration. the case reported in S. Vellaikkan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1988 Writ.L.R. 22, the Judge has taken the view that it is the date on which the substance of the 4(1) Notification was published in the convenient place of the locality, that was material for the purpose calculating the period of one year contemplated under Sec.6 of the Act. We find a to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam, A.I.R. 1989 and two Division Bench judgments of this Court in G.Nandakumar v. State of Tamil 1985 T.L.N.J. 109 and P.Venkatarathinam Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1990 T.L.N.J. will be apposite in the context.
6. Contending contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted the language of Sec.4(1) read with Sec.6 of the Act, the view taken by the learned (Mishra, J.) is correct, and if at all, only the view taken by Mohan, J., as he then requires reconsideration.
7. For appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out Sec.4(1) and the portion of Sec.6 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. They are as follows:
"4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon: (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, or company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication the giving of such public notice, being hereina
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
