BAPUJI EDUCATION SOCIETY TUMKUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTIFICATION dated 28-7-1987 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 29-10-1987 issued under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the "act") along with notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act was quashed by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned in this appeal solely on the ground of the declaration under Section 6 of the act having been published after the statutory period provided under clause (i) of Section 6 (1) of the Act. The order of the learned Single Judge is stated to be against the provisions of law, the scheme of the Act and the mandate of the Supreme Court in Khadim Hussain v State of Uttar pradesh.

(2.) WHILE dealing with the scope, purpose and object of the publications contemplated under sections 4 and 6 of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka Housing board, Bangalore v State of Karnataka, has held: "the purpose and object of publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act is to afford the affected person an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Even though the provisions of these sections are mandatory yet are not required to be interpreted on a hyper technical and sensitive pleas. A distinction has to be made between the words 'making' the declaration and 'publication' which are not synonymous. The starting point of limitation for the purpose of Section 6 is the date of the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) and for the purpose of Section 11-A the publication of the declaration under Section 6. In other words, the starting point of the limitation for the purpose of Section 6 is the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 and the point is making of the declaration, as distinguishable from its publication. Similarly, the starting point of limitation for the purposes of Section 11 of the Act would be the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and end point would be the making of the award. There is no dispute that the date of the publication of the notifications and declaration shall be the last of the dates of the publication of the notification or the declaration in the manner prescribed under the aforesaid two sections. Making of declaration under Section 6 means the signing of the declaration by the competent authority and publication of the declarations is the follow-up action which is resorted without loss of time. Time limit provided under sub-Section (1) of Section 6 shall not be applicable to the publication of notification under sub-section (2 ). Dealing with such an argument, Mrs. Sujatha Manohar (as her Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench in the case of Shivgonda Balgonda Patil and Others v Director of Resettlement and Others held.

(3.) IN order to dissuade us to reiterate the position of law settled in Writ Appeal No. 3156 of 1997, Sri M. N. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has referred to the following judgments of the Supreme Court. 1. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Another v Makrand Singh and Others.