J O KANNAN Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ appeal, the judgment of the learned single Judge, by which he dismissed the writ petition filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings, is under challenge. The only point which was argued was as regards the delay in passing the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that because of the intermediant stay granted by this Court in writ petitions as also in the writ appeals filed by the various parties, the State was entitled to the exclusion of 6 years 6 months and 10 days. Considering and holding the date of publication in the locality to be 23.1.1989, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the notification under Section 6 of the Act was in time which is dated 2.8.1996. It is this particular aspect which is in challenge before us in the present writ appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner very fervently argued before us that the calculations made by the learned single Judge were totally incorrect. According to Mr. Venkat, the notification under Section 6 of the Act should have been published only on 6.7.1996. In this view, the learned counsel submits that the period lost by the State, particularly after the dismissal of the writ petitions on 22.2.1995 and before the writ appeals were filed and stay was obtained on 17.04.1995 was about 1 month and 22 days. He points out that once the State has lost the period of one month and 22 days, then the notification under Section 6 of the Act should have been published by 6th July, 1996 and since it has been published on 2nd August, 1996, the notification has been published late by 27 days. We are afraid such a method of calculation may not be possible. Proviso to Section 6 of the Act is as under: " Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, Sub-Section (1) - (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 ( 1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of 3 years from the date of publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification; THE Explanation 1 to this Section is as follows: "Explanation 1:- In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4, Sub-Section (l) is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. THErefore, the position in law is very clear that the State Government becomes entitled to exclusion of such periods during which the State Government was bound by stay orders passed by any Court regarding the acquisition of lands. In this case, it is admitted position that various writ petitions were filed and the interim stay for the first time was granted, to the notification under Section 4 dated 9.12.1988. on 23.12.1988 i.e. the after about 14 days. All the writ petitions came to be dismissed on 22.2.1995. Thus, the period available for exclusion comes to 6 years 1 month and 29 days. THEreafter, the writ appeals came to be filed by various parties and the notification was further stayed between 17.4.1995 to 28.8.1995 covering a period of 4 months and 11 days. Thus, the total period available for exclusion was 6 years 6 months and 10 days. Now. if this period is to be calculated as the total period to be excluded then, considering that declaration under Section 6 was published on 2.8.1996 and that the notification was published in the locality on 23.1.1989, then declaration under Section 6 comes within the period of one year. THE learned counsel further argues that in this case though the notification is dated 9.12.1988 and was lastly published in the locality on 23.1.1989 inspite of the stay granted on 23.12.1988, that is even before the last publication of Section 4 notification and therefore the earlier period to 23.1.89 will have to be ignored and in effect the State Government will not get the exclusion of the period from 23.12.1988. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the said contention for the simple reason that the language in the first proviso is very clear and it contemplates only the notification under Section 4. Now that notification under Section 4 would be a starting point and the other point would be the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Two periods between these two points would be available to the State Government for exclusion as the explanation itself refers to the first Proviso, it goes on to say, In sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the principal Act to the first proviso, the following Explanation shall be added, namely:- " Explanation:- In computing the period of three years specified in this proviso, any period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is held up on account of stay or injunction by order of a Court, shall be excluded. THE language of the first proviso is very clear about the periods available for exclusion and therefore the date of that notification under Section 4 would be the starting point of time for calculating the periods of exclusion. Thus, even if the notification is published in the locality on 23.8.1989, still the Government would be entitled to have the period prior to that period, when the stay itself was granted on 23.12.1988. If these calculations are considered in the light of the reasoning given above, then there can be no doubt that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was perfectly in time.