Subash Chandran vs Guruvayur Devaswom

Kurian Joseph, J.—Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contemplate three modes of publication of the notice : Gazette, newspaper and publication in the locality. The notice u/s 6(1) should be within one year of Section 4(1) notice. But is it necessary that the one year should be understood as correlated only to the respective mode-one year of Gazette to Gazette, newspaper to newspaper and local notice to local notice?

The Original Petition is filed with the following four main prayers:-

i) call for the records leading to the issuance of Exts. P1, P2 and P3 and issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the same;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Section 6(1) declaration as evidenced by Ext. P1 is void ab initio since it is issued after one year of Section 4(1) notification.

iii) declare that Exts. P2 and P3 are void ab initio since Section 6(1) declaration itself is barred by limitation.

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that since Section 6(1) declaration was not published within one year from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification the entire acquisition proceedings initiated against the petitions has lapsed;"

Ext. P1 is the proceedings of the 4th respondent-Commissioner for Land Revenue, issued on an objection filed by the petitioners pursuant to Section 4(1) notification. It was found by the 4th respondent that the purpose of acquisition is genuine and hence the objections were overruled. It is pertinent of note that Ext. P1 is dated 27.1.2000. Thereafter, on 4.2.2000, declaration u/s 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette. It is admitted at paragraph 8 of the Original Petition that the notice of award enquiry u/s 9(1) was served on the petitioners and the matter was posted for hearing on 25.6.2001. The 1st petitioner sought for an adjournment on medical grounds and the enquiry was postponed to 23.7.2001. It is also seen from Ext. P2 award that the enquiry was finalised on 20.8.2001. The requisitioning authority viz., the 1st respondent-Guruvayur Devaswom, deposited the compensation amount on 3.11.2001. Thereafter, ext. P2 award was passed and the petitioners were also given Ext. P3 notice to surrender possession.

It is the contention of the petitioners that the 1st respondent does not require their property and the acquisition is made only to harass them. Since the objection pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 21.2.1998 was considered by the Commissioner in Ext. P1 proceedings and since the purpose was found to be genuine as per the said proceedings dated 27.1.2000, it is no more open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings on that ground.

Another contention of the petitioners is that since the declaration u/s 6(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 4.2.2000, it is beyond one year of Section 4(1) notification and hence the whole proceedings have elapsed. It is necessary to refer to a few dates in the context:-

21.12.1998 : Section 4(1) Notification published in the gazette

19.12.1998 : Published in Deepika

19.12.1998 : Published in Indian Express

12.02.1999 : Public notice about acquisition in the locality

4.2.2000 : Publication of Section 6(1) declaration in Gazette

26.3.2000 : Published in Deepika

29.3.2000 : Published in Mathrubhumi

29.3.2000 : Public notice in the locality

Thus, it can be seen that public notice on Section 4(1) notification was on 12.2.1999 and Section 6(1) declaration was published on 4.2.2000 in the Gazette, evidently within one year. Section 6(1) of the Act clearly provides that the last of the dates of publication and the giving of public notice is the relevant date. The said sub-section as follows:-

"(2). Every declaration shall be published in the Officer Gazette and in two daily newspapers 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 (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such place notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the District or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected."

Sri. K.P. Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the date of declaration in the Gazette has to correlate to the date of Section 4(1) notification in the Gazette itself and not to the public notice. In other words, since the public notice in the instant case was on 12.2.1999 and since the public notice on Section 6(1) declaration is on 29.3.2000, which is obviously after one year, the proceedings should be found to be beyond the period. I am afraid, the contention cannot be accepted. The provision in the Act regarding the dates is crystal clear and the requirement is that the publication of the declaration should be within one year the three modes of publication of Section 4(1) notification, viz., publication in the Gazette, publication in the newspaper and publication by giving notice in the locality. Evidently, in this case Section 6(1) declaration is within the period of one year of the publication of the notice in the locality. There is no requirement under the Act for a correlation of events as against respective publication, viz., Gazette to Gazette, newspaper to newspaper and publication in the locality to publication in the locality. At the risk of redundancy, it is made clear that the intent of the Legislature is only that Section 6(1) declaration should be within one year of any of the three modes of Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said contention either.

The third contention is that since the Apex Court has referred the matter to Bench of three Judges regarding the issue of publication as reported in S.H. Rangappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, , the decision of the Apex Court in the matter should be awaited. It may be seen that the issue that is referred to in the said decision is with regard to the discrepancy as to the signing of Section 6(1) declaration and the publication thereof the not the issue regarding the period for publication of Section 6(1) declaration being within one year of publication of the notice in the locality. Therefore, on that ground also, the Original Petition fails.

All that apart, this is a case where the award has already been passed as per Ext. P2. In unmistakable terms the Apex Court has held that "In any event, after the award is passed no Writ Petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder" The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others, . On that ground also the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.

The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.