EUGENICO MISQUITA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench (Goa) three questions were raised and answered, before us learned counsel for the appellants confined the argument to one of the questions raised before the High Court, namely, whether the declaration made/published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) was barred by limitation.

(2.) To appreciate the above question, certain dates are necessary. Initially a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act for acquiring land for construction and black topping of St. Sebastian Chapel Road was published on 8-11-90. That Notification lapsed as no declaration as required under Section 6 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 was made. Therefore, a fresh Notification was made under Section 4 (1) of the Act for the same purpose on 23-6-92. The said Notification under Section 4 (1) was first published in the English daily "O Heraldo" on 29-6-92, and in the Marathi daily "Nav Prabha" on 2-7-92. Public Notice in the locality of the Notification was given on 8-7-92 as required under Section 4 of the Act, Lastly, it was published in the Official Gazette of the Goa Government on 6-8-92. Immediately the validity of the said Notification was challenged in Writ Petition No. 436/92 as "urgency provision" under Section 17 (4) of the Act was also invoked. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition on 25-11-92 by directing the appellants (writ petitioners before High Court) to file their objections under Section 5A on or before 4-12-92 and directing the respondents to decide the said objections on or before 18-12-92 after hearing the aggrieved parties. After complying with the directions of the High Court, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 3-8-93 and it was published in the Official Gazette on 5-8-93. The same declaration was published in Marathi daily "Gomantak" on 6-8-93 and in the English daily "Navhind Times" on 7-8-93 respectively. Public Notice of the declaration was given in the locality on 28-8-93. Under these circumstances, the appellants challenged the validity of the declaration under Section 6 on the ground that the publication of the declaration was beyond one year taking 28-8-93 as the date of publication and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

(3.) The contention advanced on behalf of the appellants before the High Court was that on a correct understanding and interpretation of Section 6 (1) and (2), of the Act, the declaration must be taken to have been made/published for the purpose of proviso to Section 6 (1) (ii) on the date on which the last in the series of publications under Section 6 (2) was published. In this case, it was on 28-8-93. If so understood on the facts of this case, according to the appellants, the declaration having been published in the locality on 28-8-93 it was beyond one year prescribed under proviso to Section 6 (1) (ii) of the Act, Therefore, that declaration was barred by limitation. On the other hand, it was contended before the High Court on behalf of the authorities that under Section 6 (1) the relevant date for the purpose of limitation was the date on which the declaration was made and that declaration having been made on 3-8-93 was well within one year from the date of Notification published under Section 4 (1), namely, on 6-8-92. The High Court in the light of the earlier Division Bench judgment of the same Court held as follows:-