MAHALAKSHMI KESHAVA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition in which the petitioner has questioned the legality of the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the following question of law arises for consideration: Whether a declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) that a land is needed for a public purpose made within a period of three years from the date of publication of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act becomes invalid if it is published in the official gazette after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the preliminary notification ?

(2.) The brief facts of the case arethese :A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19th May 1984 stating that the land specified therein was needed for a public purpose, to wit for the purpose of Income Tax Department of the Central Government. It was published in the official Gazette on 7-6-1984. After the necessary enquiry under Section 5 A of the Act, a report was sent to the Government and the Government acting on the report directed the Deputy Commissioner to complete the steps prescribed after which a declaration under Section 6 has to be made. After the receipt of the report from the Deputy Commissioner, a declaration was made by the Government on 29-4-1987 that the land was needed for the public purpose which was set out in the preliminary notification. It was, however, published in the official gazette on 10th September 1987.

(3.) The contention of the learnedCounsel for the petitioner is that in view of the condition imposed in Section 6(1A) of the Act, the declaration was to be made within three years from the date of publication of the preliminary notification in the official gazette and a declaration as contemplated under Section 6(1A) of the Act can be said to have been made only on the date on which such declaration is published in the official gazette and as there is no dispute that the declaration in relation to the property belonging to the petitioner was published in the official gazette on 10th September 1987 and it was beyond three years from the date of publication of the preliminary notification, the same was illegal and therefore it is liable to be declared invalid. 3A. A similar question had come up for consideration in the case of Sayyad Saheb Jada & others v State of Karnataka & others (1987(2) Kar.LJ. 108), in which a similar contention was advanced. The contention was negatived by one of us (RAMA JOIS, J.). The relevant portion of the Judgment reads : "6. The petitioners, however, have raised a contention to the effect that final notification is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was issued after three years from the date of the preliminary notification and therefore, it is beyond the competence of Government. The relevant portion of Section 6 of the Act on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies reads thus: Sec. 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose : (1) XXX XXX (A) The Deputy Commissioner shall, thereupon within two months from the date on which he receives such direction (a) cause the land (unless it has been already marked out under Section 4 to be made out; (b) also cause it to be measured, and if no plan has been made therefore, a plan to be made of the same; and (c) report to the appropriate Government the result of the operations under this sub-section. The appropriate Government shall then make a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company and different declaration may be made from time to time in respect different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4: provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under subsection (1) of Sec. 4, published after commencement of the land Acquisition (Karnataka Amendment and Validation) Act 1967 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such publication. EXPLANATION : In computing the period of three years specified in this sub-section, any period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification is sued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is held up on account of stay or injustice by order of a Court shall be excluded. There is no dispute that preliminary notification dated 17th June 1978 was published in the Official Gazette on 6th July, 1978. The starting date for purpose of finding out as to whether the final notification is within the time permitted by the Section is the date of publication of the Preliminary Notification in the Official Gazette as expressly stated in the section and not the date of the issue of the notification. Further, as far as final notification is concerned, it is that date of the declaration in that the date of notification under Section 6 which should be looked into and not its publication in the Official Gazette, in view of the wording of the provision. 7. In the present case though the preliminary notification was dated 17th June 1978, it was published in the Official Gazette only on 6th July 1978. Further, though the publication of final notification/declaration in the Official Gazette was on 27th August, 1981, the date of notification/declaration was 2-7-1981. Thus it may be seen that the final notification/declaration was made within three years from the date of publication of preliminary notification. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the final notification was invalid as barred by time is untenable."