KALISAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12. 02. 2002 dismissing the writ petition No. 12938 of 1994 filed by the appellants herein seeking for the writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the notifications issued under section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act in G. O. Ms. No. 3-D No. 630, Adi dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 07. 09. 1992 and declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G. O. Ms. No. 3d No. 894 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 20. 12. 1993, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the lands and drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of survey No. 218/2 in an extent of 2 acres, Vadakkalur village, Avinashi Taluk, Coimbatore District. The said land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi dravidars. Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued in G. O. Ms. 3d No. 630 dated 07. 09. 1992. After following the provisions contemplated under the Act, declaration under section 6 of the Act has also been made on 09. 11. 1993. Award has been passed on 18. 07. 1994. The appellants filed the writ petition on 21. 07. 1994 contending that the declaration under section 6 of the Act made by the respondent was beyond the period, as provided under the provisions of the Act. That was the solitary ground argued before the learned single Judge. The learned Judge, after going through the records produced, has recorded a factual finding that the declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 09. 11. 1993 and that was well within the period of one year and therefore, there was no violation of any procedure as put forth by the petitioners. In that view of the matter the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) BEFORE us, the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners reiterated the very same argument by reading out of the provision to section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and contended that the date of publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Act in the gazette has to be taken for calculating the period of limitation. On the reading of statutory provisions, we are not able to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. Further, the issue is no longer res integra and it has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (1) CTC 569. In that case the apex Court has held that under section 4, a notification has to be published in the manner laid down therein. As against this, under section 6 a declaration has to be first made and declaration has then to be published in the manner provided under section 6 (2) of the Act. First proviso does not lay down time limit within which publication of declaration has to be made and that publication cannot take place after the period prescribed thereunder. First proviso only provides time limit for declaration and not for publication - legislation purpose omitted to use the word 'publication' or 'declaration' in the first proviso to section 6. Declaration must be made within one year from the last publication of notification under section 4. Publication under section 6 (1) may take place at later date. Such publication is only ministerial act. Last date prescribed under section 6 (ii) is only for the purpose of computing limitation under section 11a.

(3.) A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S. N. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 MLJ 105 SC after referring to the earlier judgment on this issue has held that the words 'publish' and 'from the date of publication of the notification' occurring in proviso (ii) to section 6 (1) of the Act has reference only to section 4 notification and has no reference to the publication of any notification under section 6 of the Act. Under section 6, it is only a declaration which is required to be made, the time limit being within one year from the date of publication of section 4 notification. Hence, the contention has to fail and is rejected.