SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal, N. Santosh Hegde and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
S.H. Rangappa - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7077 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22637 of 1997).
Decided On : 3 October, 2001
Land Acquisition - Validity of Notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6(2) - Section 4(1) - Section 5A - Section 6(1) - Section 6(2) - Section 4(2) - Section 4(1) - Section 4 - Section 5A - Section 6
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the validity of a notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground that it was barred by time. The appellant argued that the notification had to be issued within one year of the publication of the Section 4 notification.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification under Section 6(1) was valid as it was made within the prescribed period, and the provisions of Section 6(2) did not impose a time limit for the publication of the declaration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the notification under Section 6(1) should be published within the period prescribed by the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 6(1) and Section 6(2) and held that the time limit for the declaration under Section 6(1) did not extend to the publication of the declaration, and there was no specific time limit for the publication of the declaration under Section 6(2). The court relied on the decision in Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P. and Ors. to support its interpretation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
B.N. Kirpal, J. - C.A. No. 7077 of 2001 @ SLP(C) No. 22637 of 1997.
Leave granted.
2. Whether the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") should be published within the period prescribed by the proviso to Section 6(1) of the said Act, is the only question which arises for consideration in this case.
3. The notification dated 29th November, 1987 was issued and published in the Official Gazette on 28th January, 1988. The same was published in the newspaper on 23rd February, 1988. This notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act wherein it was stated that the lands indicated in the Schedule thereto were intended to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of houses by the Karnataka Housing Board. Persons interested were informed that they could file objections to the proposed acquisition. This notification was published in the newspaper on 23rd February, 1988 whereafter objections were filed under Section 5A of the Act. On 22nd February, 1989 a declaration was made signed by the competent authority under Section 6(1) of the Act. It was stated therein that after verification of the Report of the Housing Commissioner and taking into consideration objections under Section 5A, it was declared that the lands specified in the Schedule thereto were acquired for the public purpose for construction of different categories of houses by Karnataka Housing Board. This declaration which was dated 22nd February, 1989 was published in the Official Gazette on 9th March, 1989.
4. The appellant herein challenged the validity of the notification under Section 6 primarily on the ground that this notification was barred by time. It was contended by the learned counsel that the notification under Section 6(1) had to be issued within one year of the publication of Section 4 notification and this not having been done the said notification was liable to be quashed. The Single Judge of the High Court did not accept this argument. It was observed that the declaration was made within one year under Section 6(1) on 22nd February, 1989. The said Section 6 did not provide for any period of limitation within which the declaration had to be published and, therefore, once the declaration was made within the prescribed period, the notification was made within the prescribed period, the notification was valid. The writ appeal met with no success. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
5. It s contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that on a correct interpretation of Section 6, the declaration which was issued has to be published within one year of the publication of Section 4 notification.
Section 6 reads as follows :
"6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose - (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, [when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub- section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective or whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-section (2)] :
[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) -
(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition Act (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Am
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.