Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
D.C. NANJUDAIAH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Though the respondents have been served, no one is
appearing either in person or through counsel.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The controversy raised in this case is covered by the
judgment of this Court in N. Narasimhaiah vs. State of
Karnataka [(1996) 3 SCC 88]. The admitted facts are that
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 was published on August 26, 1982 and enquiry under
Section 5-A was conducted thereafter. But before the receipt
of the report from the Land Acquisition Officer, the
declaration under Section 6 was published on June 24, 1985
within three years. Two writ petitions were filed on
December 10, 1985 challenging the notification under Section
4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. The High Court
allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notification
under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 by the
impugned judgment dated February 26, 1991 made in Writ
petition Nos. 19348 and 19349 of 1985. Thus, these appeals
by special leave.
It is seen that the declaration under Section 6 was
published within three years from the date of the
notification under Section 4(1) as upheld by the High Court.
But the High Court noted that the enquiry under Section 5-A
was not properly conducted. The declaration under Section 6
dated June 24, 1985 quashed since the notification under
Section 4(1) was dated August 26, 1982 and the declaration
could not be published within three years even after
excluding the period of pendency of the writ petitions under
proviso to Section 6 of the Act. Thus, the notification
under Section 4(1) was quashed. We find no justification for
the view taken by the High Court. It is seen that
declaration under Section 6 was published, as held by the
High Court, within three years, but the conduct of the
enquiry under Section 5-A was found fault with and it
requires to be quashed. If it is quashed, necessarily an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
enquiry under Section 5-A has to be conducted. The
limitation, therefore, of conducting the enquiry and
publication of the declaration within three years would
start running from the date of the receipt of the order of
the High Court and not from the date on which the original
publication of the declaration within three years would
start running from the date of the receipt of the order of
the High Court and not from the date on which the original
publication under Section 4(1) came to be made. This view
was laid by this Court in Narasimiah’s case (supra). For the
same ratio, the appeals are to be allowed and the
declaration has to be quashed. Accordingly, the declaration
is quashed. The appellant is permitted to conduct an enquiry
within a period of four months from the date of the receipt
of this order and have the declaration published within one
month thereafter.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.