AMINA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land acquisition proceedings initiated for constructing a railway over bridge are impugned solely on the ground of the bar of limitation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ['the Act' for short]. The plea of malafides in the land acquisition proceedings in question has already been turned down by this Court in a series of writ petitions. The contention of the petitioners is that more than one year has elapsed since the date of notification under Section 4 without any declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners seek a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed and to quash the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

(2.) A declaration under Section 6 of the Act is required to be made for a public purpose before the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This is evident by proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Act subject of course to Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 found therein. Explanation 1 which operates in the case on hand is extracted hereunder:-

(3.) I heard Mr.K.Jayakumar, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.K.A.Jaleel, Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State and Mrs.Vaheeda Babu, Advocate on behalf of the Additional respondent.