Manmohan Lal Gupta, Advocate vs State of Punjab and Another

Ashok Bhan, J.—Prayer made in this petition is for quashing the acquisition proceedings by issuing notifications u/s 4 dated 30.11.1992 (Annexure P-2) and u/s 6 dated 25.11.1993 (Annexure P4), issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), on the ground that the award, Annexure P-7, given u/s 11-A of the Act was beyond the statutory period of two years after the publication of the notification u/s 6 of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings for acquisition of the land would be deemed to have lapsed.

State of Punjab issued a notification for acquisition of the land, including that of the petitioner, for setting up a New Mandi Town at Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa, u/s 4 of the Act on 30.11.1992, which was duly published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 30.11.1992, in response to which, petitioner filed his objections u/s 5-A, of the Act. Objections filed u/s 5-A were rejected and a notification u/s 6 or the Act was published in the official gazette on 25.11.1993. It was published in two newspapers dated 21.12.1993 (Punjabi Tribune) and 24.12.1993 (English Tribune). The same was also published in the locality on 24.1.1994. Award was announced on 15.1.1996. In the petition, the dates of publication of section 6 of notification in the newspapers and in the locality have not been mentioned. These facts have been brought out in the written statement filed by the respondents.

Section 6 of the Act provides that when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made u/s 5-A sub section (2) that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of the Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders within three years of the publication of the notification u/s 4. u/s 6(2), such declaration shall be published in the official gazette, two daily newspapers circulated in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality. It further provides that "the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration."

Under the statute, three modes of publication have been provided i.e. the official Gazette, two daily newspapers and in the locality. The last of such publication is to be taken as the publication of the declaration. Section 11-A provides that the Collector shall make an award u/s 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.

Under proviso (i) to section 6(1), declaration u/s 6(1) cannot be made after the expiry of three years of the publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. In this case, the notification u/s 6(1) was published within the period of three years. Taking the date of publication of the notification u/s 6 in the official gazette (25.11.1993) to be the final publication, present petition has been filed for quashing the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the award was not made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration rendering the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land infructuous.

We do not find any merit in this petition. Last publication was on 24.1.1994 in the locality and taking that to be the last date of publication of the declaration, the award made on 15.1.1996 is within the statutory period of two years provided u/s 11-A of the Act.

For the view taken we find support from the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Another Vs. Makrand Singh and Others, . In this case, their Lordships were considering the question as to whether the declaration u/s 6(1) was published within/after three years of the last of the publication u/s 4(1). While dealing with that proposition their Lordships observed as under:-

"5. Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 6(1) mandates the publication of the declaration in the official gazette and it should be within three years from the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) i.e. the last of the dates referred to in Section 4(1). The word ''publish'' emphasises the act accomplished i.e. declaration u/s 6(1) being published in the official Gazette. The last date u/s 6(2) shall be the date for the purposes "hereinafter referred to" would be not for computing the period of three years prescribed in clause (i) of proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act it was already done, but purposes to be followed hereinafter. Otherwise language would have been "hereinbefore done". Sub-section (2) as such did not prescribed any limitation within which the declaration u/s 6(1) or other steps hereinafter to be taken, in other words, the steps to be taken thereafter in making the award u/s 11 or in computation of the period prescribed in Section 11-A. The publication of the declaration in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality one of which is in the regional language and the publication of the substance of the declaration in the locality are ministerial acts and is a procedural part. It appears that these publications are required to be done to make the declaration published in the manner, to be conclusive evidence of the public purpose u/s 6(1) and also to provide limitation to make the award u/s 11 by the Collector. In other words, the limitation prescribed u/s 11-A is for the purpose of making the award and if the Collector fails to do so, the entire proceeds under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) shall stand lapsed. If this consistent policy of the Act is understood giving teeth to the operational efficacy to the scheme of the Act and public purpose the Act seeks to serve, we are of the considered view that publication in the official Gazette already made under clause (i) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 is complete, as soon as the declaration u/s 6(1) was published in the Official Gazette. That will be the date for the purpose of computation of three years'' period from the last of the dates of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1). The procedural ministerial acts prescribed under sub-section(2) are only for the purpose of the procedure to be followed ''hereinafter''. In other words, the steps to be taken subsequent to the publication of the declaration u/s 6(1) of the Act. We cannot agree with Shri Rana, the learned Senior Counsel, that the date of making the declaration by the Secretary to the Government or the authorised officer is the date for computing period of three years. Equally we can not agree with the learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Upadhyay, that publication of the substance being the last date from which the period of three years needs to be computed. Acceptance of either contention would easily defeat the public policy under the Act by skilful manner of management with the lower level officials. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its conclusion that since declaration was published in the newspapers on 4-6-1987, after the expiry of three years, the declaration u/s 6(1) and the notification u/s 4(1) stood lapsed. It is clearly illegal. The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that other contention raised in the writ petitions needs to be dealt with and so the cases need to be remanded, has no force for the reason that though they were pleaded but the parties have chosen to argue only the above contention. So it is not a fit case for remand. The writ petitions would stand dismissed. The appeals are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs."

The word ''hereinafter'' in sub-section (2) indicates the steps which are to be taken subsequent to the publication of the declaration u/s 6(1) of the Act. Section 11 mandates the Collector to make the award u/s 11 within the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and in case no award is made within that period, the entire acquisition proceedings of land shall lapse. Sub-Section (2) of section 6 stipulates that the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice would be the date of publication of the declaration. Taking the date of last of the publication in the locality as the date of publication of the declaration, the award made by the Collector u/s 11-A was within two years.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.