Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a limitation dispute under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arising from acquisition of land for construction and black topping of St. Sebastian Chapel Road in Goa. The appellants, landowners, challenged the validity of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, arguing that it was made beyond the one-year period prescribed by the proviso to Section 6(1)(ii). The State of Goa and acquiring authorities defended the declaration as timely. Initially, a notification under Section 4(1) was published on 8.11.90 but lapsed because no declaration under Section 6 was made within the period as amended by Act 68 of 1984. A fresh notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 23.6.92 and published in two daily newspapers on 29.6.92 and 2.7.92, with public notice in the locality on 8.7.92, and finally in the Official Gazette on 6.8.92. The appellants challenged this notification in Writ Petition No.436/92 because the urgency provision under Section 17(4) was invoked. The High Court, by order dated 25.11.92, directed the appellants to file objections under Section 5A by 4.12.92 and the authorities to decide those objections by 18.12.92. After compliance, a declaration under Section 6 was made on 3.8.93 and published in the Official Gazette on 5.8.93, in Marathi daily 'Gomantak' on 6.8.93, in English daily 'Navhind Times' on 7.8.93, and public notice of the declaration was given in the locality on 28.8.93. The appellants contended before the High Court that the last of the series of publications under Section 6(2), i.e., 28.8.93, should be taken as the date of publication for computing the one-year limitation, making the declaration barred because it fell beyond one year from 6.8.92. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the declaration was made on 3.8.93, which was within one year from the date of publication of the Section 4(1) notification. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the purpose of the one-year limitation introduced by the 1984 Amendment was to speed up proceedings and that this purpose could only be achieved by treating the last publication under Section 6(2) as the relevant date. They relied on Jagrup Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1993 Rajasthan 157. The respondents maintained that the date of making the declaration under Section 6(1) was the relevant date. The Supreme Court observed that it is well settled that the last of the dates in the series of publications under Section 4(1) is the starting point of limitation under the proviso to Section 6(1)(ii). The Court then examined whether the publication modes under Section 6(2) had any role in computing the one-year period. It noted that while judicial decisions interpreted the word 'made' in Section 6(1) as 'published' for making the declaration effective, that publication did not refer to the multiple publications under Section 6(2). The Court emphasized that the word 'hereinafter' in Section 6(2) showed that the last publication under that sub-section was relevant only for subsequent stages, particularly for the award under Section 11-A. Thus, the date of making the declaration under Section 6(1) was the relevant date for the proviso limitation. The Court relied on Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Makrand Singh, (1995) 2 SCC 497, which had already answered identical contentions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the declaration made on 3.8.93 fell within one year from 6.8.92 and was not barred by limitation, thereby affirming the High Court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Declaration Under Section 6 - Relevant Date for One-Year Proviso - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1), 6(2), Proviso to Section 6(1)(ii) - The dispute pertained to whether the one-year period for making a declaration under proviso to Section 6(1)(ii) should be computed from the date of making the declaration or from the last date of publication under Section 6(2). The Court held that the date of making the declaration under Section 6(1) is determinative; publication under Section 6(2) serves a different purpose, namely computing limitation under Section 11-A for award. The declaration made on 3.8.93 was within one year from the Section 4(1) notification published on 6.8.92, so the acquisition proceedings did not lapse. Held that the declaration was not barred by limitation. (Paras 1-6) B) Statutory Interpretation - Meaning of 'Hereinafter' in Section 6(2) - Word Confining Publication Dates to Subsequent Stages - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 6(2), Section 11-A - The word 'hereinafter' in Section 6(2) indicated that the last of the dates of publication and public notice under that sub-section was relevant only for matters coming after the declaration, such as award under Section 11-A, and not for computing limitation under the proviso to Section 6(1)(ii). The Court noted that Section 6(2) prescribed publication for information and to trigger subsequent time limits, not to backdate the making of the declaration. Held that last publication on 28.8.93 did not affect the validity of the declaration already made on 3.8.93. (Paras 4-5) C) Land Acquisition - Commencement Point of Limitation Under Proviso to Section 6(1)(ii) - Last Date of Section 4(1) Publication - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1), Proviso to Section 6(1)(ii) - It is well settled that the last of the dates in the series of publications under Section 4(1) is the relevant date to reckon the starting point of limitation for the proviso to Section 6(1)(ii). In this case, the Section 4(1) notification was last published in the Official Gazette on 6.8.92; the one-year period expired on 5.8.93. The declaration made on 3.8.93 was within that period. Held that the starting point was correctly identified and the declaration satisfied the limitation. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the declaration made/published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was barred by limitation; specifically, whether for computing one-year period under proviso to Section 6(1)(ii), the relevant date is the date of making the declaration or the last date of publication under Section 6(2).
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the declaration under Section 6 was made on 3.8.93, which was within one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) (6.8.92), and therefore not barred by limitation. The High Court judgment was affirmed.
Law Points
- For computing one-year limitation under proviso to Section 6(1)(ii) of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- the relevant date is the date on which declaration is made under Section 6(1)
- not the last date of publication under Section 6(2)
- The word 'hereinafter' in Section 6(2) confines the publication dates thereunder to subsequent stages such as award under Section 11-A
- The last of the dates of publications under Section 4(1) is the starting point of limitation for proviso to Section 6(1)(ii)
- Judicial interpretation of 'made' as 'published' in Section 6(1) only makes the declaration effective upon publication
- but does not import the multiple publication modes of Section 6(2) into the limitation proviso
