Proceedings not having been completed within 60 days entire proceedings vitiated.

1. This writ petition is filed, seeking to quash the impugned acquisition proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, with respect to the petitioner’s land bearing re-survey No. 180, Keelbuvanagiri river-bed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned acquisition proceedings on three grounds, namely, (1) the entire process commencing with the issue of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and ending with the publication of the Notification in the locality has not been done within 60 days as contemplated under Section 4 (l) (b) of the Act and so the entire proceedings are vitiated; (2) no sufficient time has been given to the petitioner to file his objections; and (3) the notice issued for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is not in accordance with law, as, in the said notice, it has been stated as if it has been issued under Act 31 of 1978.

3. Though under the Central Act, namely, the Land Acquisition Act 1894, no time-limit has been prescribed for completion of the proceedings contemplated under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the Legislative Assembly of State of Tamil Nadu has introduced amendment to Section 4 (1) of the Act by enacting Act No. 16 of 1997, under Section 2 of Act 16 of 1997. The relevant provision has been extracted below:-

“2. Amendment of Section 4:- In the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act)), in Section 4:-

.(1) in sub-section (1)):-

.(a) for the expression ‘whenever it appears to the appropriate Government the expression ‘Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1-A), whenever it appears to the Collector or the Commissioner of Land Administration or the Government, as the case may be,’ shall be substituted;

(b) the following Explanation shall be added at the end, namely: -

‘Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section, the publication of notification in the Official Gazette, the publication of such notification in two daily newspapers and the giving of public notice:-

.(a) may precedeeach other;

.(b) shall be completed within a period of sixty days. The period of sixty days shall be reckoned from the date of publication of notification in the Official Gazette or the date of publication of such notification in two daily newspapers or the date of giving public notice, whichever is earlier.

By the abovesaid amendment, an explanation has been introduced to Section 4 (1) of the Act. According to the said explanation, the proceedings contemplated under Section 4 (1) of the Act shall be completed within a period of 60 days which shall be reckoned from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or the date of publication of such notification in two daily newspapers or the date of giving notice, whichever is earlier.

4. In thepresent case, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 15. 1998 and in the newspapers on 25. 1998. But the same was published in the locality on 9. 1998. The abovesaid dates regarding the publication of notification are not in dispute. On the basis of the abovesaid dates, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Act have not been completed as per explanation to Section 4(1) of the Act as amended Act No. 16 of 1997. He has also submitted that since the said amendment has received the assent of the President on 13. 1997, it cannot be said that no time-limit has been stipulated under the principal Act and so the State Act cannot operate against the said Act. This submission was made by the learned counsel only on the basis of the decision in Sanjeeva Kumar Medical and Health Employees Co-operative Housing Society v. Mohd. Abdul Wahab and others , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3360.

5. As pointed out earlier, the said amendment Act has received the assent of the President and so in view of Article 254 (2) of the