Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4065 of 1999
PETITIONER:
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur
RESPONDENT:
Bheru Lal & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/09/2002
BENCH:
M. B. SHAH & D. M. DHARMADHIKARI.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
WITH
CA Nos.4066-4104, 4106-4118 of 1999, CA Nos.858, 2603,
4344 of 2000, CA Nos. 2410, 5263 of 2001, CA
Nos._6060,6055,6059,6057,6062,6056,6058,6061/2002
arising out of SLP Nos.12817, 12822, 13826, 14907,
14909-12 of 2000 AND CA No. 6054/2002 arising out of
SLP No. 2436 OF 2002.
Shah, J.
Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) was made by the State
of Rajasthan on 21st Februry, 1990 for acquiring approximately 4800
bighas of land situated in Tehsil Girwa, district Udaipur as it was
required by Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (hereinafter referred
to as ’the Improvement Trust’), for the public purpose i.e. Udaipur
Bhuwana Extension Scheme, Udaipur. Bhuwana Extension Scheme
of the Improvement Trust is a residential scheme sub-serving the
objective of the planned development and utilization of the notified
land. The Improvement Trust, Udaipur was established under the
provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Development Act, 1959 for the
purpose of carrying out improvement and expansion etc. of urban area
of the city Udaipur. It provides for the acquisition of any land or
other property necessary for the execution of the Scheme.
Before the notification could be published in the official
gazette, the Gram Panchayat Bhuwana filed Civil Writ Petition
No.2255 of 1991 on 20.5.1991 challenging the notification dated 21st
February, 1990. In the said matter, writ petitioner prayed for interim
relief to the effect that the Improvement Trust should not make any
allotment to any person out of the land of Khasra Nos.2661, 2691 and
2835 of village Bhuwana and the notification be quashed. The High
Court passed the following interim order in the writ petition:
"Issue Notice.
Meanwhile the status quo as it exists today with respect
to the land in question will be maintained."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
That writ petition when came up for hearing on 28.10.1994,
was not pressed and was dismissed as withdrawn.
In these matters, following are the relevant dates on which
submissions are made:
Pending hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, notification
which was prepared on 21st February, 1990 was published on 31st
March, 1990 and Ist April, 1990 in the daily newspapers.
On 4.6.1992 notification under Section 4(1) dated
21.2.1990 was published in the official gazette.
On 13.11.1992, substance of the said notification under
Section 4 of the Act was affixed at the conspicuous places.
On 17/19.5.1993, substance of the said notification was
published in the local newspapers.
On 17.5.1994, the declaration under Section 6 (1) was made.
On 24.5.1994, the said declaration made under Section 6(1)
was published in the official gazette.
On 9/10.10.1994, the declaration under Section 6 (1)
was published in local newspapers.
Thereafter, in some of the matters, awards under Section 12 of
the Act were made and in some of the cases proceedings for making
awards were over but awards were not passed. In the meantime, in all
43 writ petitions were filed, out of which 11 were filed in the year
1995, 30 were filed in the year 1996 and 2 were filed in the year 1997
challenging the acquisition proceedings. Large number of other land
owners have not challenged the land acquisition proceedings.
The learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated
10.1.1997 in S.B. CWP No.469 of 1996 etc. dismissed all writ
petitions. Against that judgment and order, Civil Special Appeal
No.270 of 1997 etc. were preferred before the Division Bench of the
High Court. The High Court by impugned judgment and order dated
6th March, 1998 allowed the appeals and quashed the acquisition
proceedings including the awards etc. with a clarification that
judgment would not confer any benefit on any other person who was
not a party before the Court. The Court held that publication of
notices in the newspapers prior to 4.6.1992, which is the date of
publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, cannot be
considered for the purpose of determining the period of limitation for
declaration made under Section 6(1). The last date of publication of
the substance of notification under Section 4(1) was 19.5.1993 and as
the notification under Section 6 was published in the official gazette
on 24.5.1994, the same was beyond the period of one year and hence
all subsequent proceedings were void.
The aforesaid finding cannot be sustained in view of Sections 4
and 6 of the Act as well as the decision rendered by this Court in S.H.
Rangappa v. State of Karnataka and another [(2002) 1 SCC 538]
and Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P. and others [(1976) 1 SCC 843].
We would first refer to relevant ingredients of Section 4(1) of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
the Act, which are as under:
Whenever it appears to appropriate Government
that land in any locality is needed or likely to be needed
for the public purpose or for a company
(1) a notification to that effect shall be
published in the Official Gazette; and
(2) it is also required to be published in
(a) two daily newspapers circulating in that
locality, and
(b) the Collector is required to cause public
notice of the substance of such
notification at convenient places in the
locality;
(3) the last date of such publication and giving
such public notice is considered as "the date
of publication of the notification".
The publication of the notification made or prepared by the
Government would be of no effect till it is published in the Official
Gazette. That part of Section 4 is mandatory and is condition
precedent for initiation of Land Acquisition proceedings.
As against this, Section 6 inter alia provides that when the
appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if
any, made under Section 5A (2) that the land is needed for a public
purpose or for a company
(1) a declaration shall be made to that effect under the
signatures of a Secretary to such Government or of
some officer duly authorised to certify its order;
and,
(2) different declarations could be made from time to
time in respect of different parcels of any land
covered by the same notification under Section
4(1) of the Act.
(3) Further, under the Ist proviso to the said section, it
is inter alia provided that no declaration in respect
of a particular land covered by notification under
Section 4(1) shall be made after the expiry of one
year from "the date of publication of the
notification".
Sub-section (2) of Section 6 thereafter provides that every
such declaration is required to be published in the official gazette and
in two daily newspapers circulated in the locality and also the
Collector is required to cause public notice of the substance of such
declaration at the convenient places in the said locality.
From the different phraseology used in Sections 4(1) and 6(1),
it is apparent that under Section 4(1) publication in the official gazette
is a condition precedent for acquiring the land.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
As against this, Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate
Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public
purpose or for a company, a declaration is to be made to that effect
under the signature of the Secretary of such Government or of some
officer duly authorised to certify its order. Further, such declaration is
to be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of
the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, Section 6(1)
does not require that such declaration could not be published in the
official gazette after expiry of one year from the date of publication of
the notification under Section 4(1). Time limit of one year is
prescribed to a declaration to be made that land is needed for a public
purpose under the signature of a Secretary or authorised officer to
such Government.
In this view of the matter, in the present case, the relevant dates
for consideration would be 17/19.5.1993 when the substance of
the notification under Section 4 was published in the local newspapers
and 17.5.1994 which is the date on which declaration under Section 6
was made. The date 24.5.1994 when such declaration was published
in the official gazette is not required to be considered. The
notification under Section 6(1) is made within prescribed period.
Hence, the impugned order passed by the High Court considering the
relevant date as 24.5.1994 for setting at naught the land acquisition
proceeding cannot be justified.
Further, the aforesaid question is concluded by three Judge
Bench decision of this Court in S.H. Rangappa’s case (supra),
wherein it is held that Sub-section (2) of Section 6 does not prescribe
any time limit within which the declaration made under Section 6(1)
is to be published in official gazette. The time limit being within one
year of the publication of Notification under Section 4 is only for the
declaration which is required to be made under Section 6(1) of the
Act. For this purpose, the Court referred to the earlier decision in
Khadim Hussain’s case (supra). The same view is taken in the case
of Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod v. State of Maharashtra and others
[(2002) 1 SCC 689].
The learned senior counsel Mr. R.P. Bhatt appearing for the
respondents submitted that the notices which were published in the
daily newspapers on 31st March, 1990 and Ist April, 1990 are required
to be taken into consideration for computing the period of limitation
of one year for the purpose of making of declaration under Section
6(1). It is his contention that the notices were published in the daily
newspapers in March/April 1990 and, therefore, there was no question
of publishing the notices again in the newspapers on 17/19.5.1993.
Hence, subsequent publication of notices is required to be ignored.
In our view, the aforesaid submission is rightly rejected by the
High Court. It has to be stated that for the purpose of acquiring the
lands, publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the official
gazette is mandatory. If the decision taken by the Government to
acquire the land is not notified in the official gazette, the said decision
will be of no effect. As stated above, Section 4 of the Act mandates
that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land
in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public
purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be
published in the official gazette and acquisition process starts after
publication of the notification in the official gazette under Section
4(1). [Re: Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad and another v.
Raja Ram Jaiswal [(1985) 3 SCC 1] and State of Haryana and
another v. Raghubir Dayal [(1995) 1 SCC 133]. Therefore,
publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) being a condition
precedent for acquisition of land, said date is required to be taken into
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
consideration for counting the period of limitation of one year and the
previous publication of notices in the newspapers were rightly ignored
by the High Court.
It is also contended by Mr. Bhatt, learned senior counsel that
taking 17th or 19th May as the date of publication of substance of the
Notification under Section 4 in the local newspapers, then there is
delay in its publication. Therefore also, the land acquisition
proceedings are required to be quashed.
It is apparent that the Notification under Section 4 was first
published in the official gazette in June 1992. Thereafter substance
was published in November 1992 at the conspicuous places and
subsequently it was published in the local newspapers. Considering
this sequence of publication, even if there is some delay, it would not
mean that on this ground the land acquisition proceedings under
Section 4 require to be set aside. Similar view is expressed by this
Court in State of Haryana and another v. Raghubir Dayal and
others [(1995) 1 SCC 133 para 7].
Further, learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that
on the ground of delay and laches in filing the writ petitions, the Court
ought to have dismissed the same. In the present case, as stated
above, the Notification under section 6 was published in the Official
Gazette on 24.5.1994. The writ petitions are virtually filed after two
years. In a case where land is needed for a public purpose, that too for
a scheme framed under the Urban Development Act, the Court ought
to have taken care in not entertaining the same on the ground of delay
as it is likely to cause serious prejudice to the persons for whose
benefit the Housing Scheme is framed under the Urban Development
Act and also in having planned development of the area. The law on
this point is well settled. [Re. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Zaver
Chand Popatlal Sumaria and others [(1996) 4 SCC 579] and Hari
Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others [(1984) 3 SCR 417].
In the result, the appeals filed by the Urban Improvement Trust
are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos.270-277/97 etc. allowing the
appeals and quashing the land acquisition proceedings is set aside.
The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is
restored.
Civil Appeal No.5263/2001 filed by J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. is
also dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.