Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Narendra Tarachand Agrawal, filed a review application against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2017/2001, decided on 05.10.2002. The original writ petition challenged the acquisition of 9 R of land from survey No. 249 of Mouja Shegaon under the Land Acquisition Act. Notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 were issued on 07.02.2000 and 20.02.2001 respectively. The Division Bench quashed the Section 6 notification on the ground that the applicant was not heard under Section 5A of the Act, and directed that a fresh hearing be given before issuing a fresh Section 6 notification. The applicant sought review, arguing that the judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record because the direction to issue a fresh notification would be beyond the one-year period prescribed under Section 6. The court examined Section 6, which requires a declaration to be made within one year from the date of publication of the Section 4 notification. However, the court held that the one-year limit applies only to the original declaration. Since the original Section 6 notification was quashed, the fresh declaration is not bound by that time limit. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The court considered whether the direction to issue a fresh Section 6 notification after quashing the original one for violation of Section 5A hearing amounts to an error apparent on the face of record, as the fresh notification would be beyond the one-year period under Section 6. The court held that no such error exists because the original notification was quashed and the period of one year does not apply to a fresh declaration issued after quashing. (Paras 2-4) B) Land Acquisition - Section 6 - Time Limit - The one-year period under Section 6 for issuing a declaration applies only to the original notification. When a notification is quashed by a court, a fresh declaration can be issued without being constrained by the original one-year limit. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment quashing Section 6 notification and directing fresh hearing and issuance of fresh notification suffers from an error apparent on the face of record because the fresh notification would be beyond the one-year period prescribed under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision
The review application is dismissed. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record as the one-year period under Section 6 applies only to the original declaration and not to a fresh declaration issued after quashing.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on face of record
- Land Acquisition Act
- Section 5A hearing
- Section 6 time limit
- Fresh notification after quashing
