OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOLversusTHE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. ETC.

                     OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL                                      A
                                      V.

     THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. ETC.

                             AUGUST 2, 1995

        (AM. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.]                             B

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

     Sections 4(1), SA and 6(1) (As amended by Act 84 of 1984)-Proviso-
Explanation 1.                                                                  C
       Land Acquisition-Proceedings after the stage of Notification under
Section 4( 1) quashed by High Cowt-Directions for fresh enquiry under
section SA and for issue of declaration under section 6 after expiry of three
years from the date of publication of Notification under section 4(1)-Held
~~                                                                              D
      Section 6(1)-Explanation-Notification under section 4( 1)-Limita-
tion period for declaration-Exclusion of period of stay order granted by
Court-Stay order passed by a Minister cannot be taken into account-Peliod
of stay granted for adjoining land under the same Notification cannot be        E
reckoned.

      In the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
for acquisition of appellant's land, a Notification under section 4(1) was
published on 8.9.1982 while the declaration under section 6 was published
on 15.2.1984. The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings and a        F
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the entire acquisition proceed·
ings after the stage of section 4(1) Notification and directed that a fresh
enquiry should be conducted under section SA and the declaration under
section 6 shall be issued within six months from the date of the judgment
and that the award shall be passed within four months thereafter. The           G
High Court also passed an interim order restraining the respondents from
dispossessing the appellant.

      In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that the
directions given by the High Court were in conflict with the proviso to
section 6 which provides that no declaration in respect of land covered by      H
                                    461
    462                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   a notification under section 4(1) shall be made after the expiry of three
    years from the date of the publication of the notification.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court

           HELD : 1. The directions given by the High Court are set aside. In
B   the present case the Notification under Section 4(1) was published before
    the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 but
    after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Valida-
    tion) Ordinance 1967. In view of the proviso, the declaration cannot be
    made under Section 6 in respect of any .land covered by the said Notifica-
C   tion after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the
    said Notification. [465-C-D]

          2. The appellant obtained stay from the High Court long after the
    expiry of the period of three years provided under the proviso to Section
    6. Even if one excludes the period during which the subsequent stay
D   operated, the issuance of a fresh declaration undet Section 6 would be
    clearly beyond the period of three years prescribed under the proviso to
    Section 6. Since the prohibition on issuance of a declaration under Section
    6 after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the
    Notification under Section 4(1) is absolute, the High Court could not have
E   given any direction permitting issuance of the declaration under Section 6
    within six months from the date of its judgment. [465-G-H; 466-A]

          3. A stay granted by the Minister fo.r Local Administration however,
    cannot be taken into account for the purposes of Explanation 1. The said
    Explanation requires that the order of stay should be passed by a court.
F   In any event a stay in respect of proceedings pertaining to an adjacent land
    cannot be availed of by the respondents in calculating the period of three
    years prescribed by proviso to Section 6. [466-D]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6697 of
G   1995 Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.94 of the Madras High
    Court in W.P.No. 4836 of 1987.

         A. Ganguli, R.Mohan, V. Balachandran, V. Ramasubramanian, V.G.
H   Pragasam and R. Nedumaran for the Appellants.
     OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL v. GOVf. OFT.N. [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.)   463

      V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General and Ms. A. Subhashini for        A
the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted.
                                                                                B
       The appeal pertains to land admeasuring 1 ground and 1602 sq. ft.
iri T.S.No. 3/1/part, Block No. 31, Mambalam Village, Madras owned by
the appellant society. By a Notification dated 24.8.1982 issued by the
respondent-Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
 1894, a portion of the said land was notified as required for a road and       C
water drainage arrangements. The Notification was published in Tamil
Nadu Gazette dated 8.9.1982. Thereafter the respondent-Government is-
sued a declaration dated 19.12.1983 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisi-
 tion Act acquiring the said land for the public purpose or providing a road,
drainage and water facilities. The Notification was published in Tamil          D
Nadu Gazette dated 15th of February, 1984. On 13.8.1984, the appellant
was also served with notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisi-
 tion Act. Pursuant thereto, the appellant submitted a claim for compensa-
tion. No award, however, was made thereafter till April 1987.

      In April 1987, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High        E
Court of Madras being Writ Petition No. 4836 of 1987 challenging the said
acquisition proceedings. On 12th of May, 1987, the appellant obtained an
interim order from the High Court of Madras restraining respondents 1
and 2 from dispossessing the appellant.

       The contention of the appellant in the said writ petition to the effect
                                                                                F
that the provisions of Rule 3(b) framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu
under Section 55(1) of the said Act, which are mandatory in nature, had
not been complied with in their case, has been upheld by the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court in the impugned judgment dated
28.4.1994. The Division Bench has set aside the entire acquisition proceed- G
ings after the stage of Section 4(1) Notification and has allowed the writ
petition accordingly in part. The Division Bench has, however, directed
that there shall be a fresh enquiry under Section SA of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act in accordance with law. It has further directed that the enquiry
shall be completed and if the Government decides to proceed with the H
    464                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   acquisition the declaration shall be issued under Section 6 of the said Act
    within six months from the date of the judgment and the award shall be
    passed within four months thereafter. These latter directions dealing with
    a fresh enquiry under Section SA and subsequent steps directed to be taken
    by the High Court are the subject matter of challenge in this appeal which
B   is preferred by the appellant. The findings of the Division Bench of the
    Madras High Court setting aside acquisition proceedings after the stage of
    Section 4(1) Notification have not been challenged before us by the respon-
    dents.

          It is urged before us by the appellant that the subsequent directions
C which have been given by the High Court are in clear conflict with the
    proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant had
    also preferred a revision petition before the Madras High Court on the
    basis of the proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
    revision petition, however, was dismissed. Whereupon the appellant has
D   come before this Court.

          The relevant provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
    1894 after its amendment by Act 64 of 1984 are as follows :

            "6(1): .........when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after
E           considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section
            (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, ........ a
            declaration shall be made to that effect. .... and different declara-
            tions may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels
            of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4,
F           sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different
            reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section
            5-A, sub-section (2).

               Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land
            covered by a notification under Section 4, sub- section (1}-
G
                                                                                       \-
               (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition            L

            (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967) but
            before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
            Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the
H           date of the publication of the notification; or
     OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL v. GOVf.OFT.N.(MRS. SUJATA V.MANOHAR,J.)     465

            (ii)........                                                       A

           Explanation 1 - In computing any of the periods referred to in
        the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding
        to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section
        4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be
        excluded."                                                          B

The amended provisions came into effect from 24.9.1984 and were in force
on the date of the impugned judgment.

      In the present case the Notification under Section 4(1) was published
before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
                                                                               c
1984 but after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment
and Validation) Ordinance, 1967. In view of the above proviso the decla-
ration cannot be made under Section 6 in respect of any land covered by
the said Notification after the expiry of three years from the date of the
publication of the said Notification. In the present case Section 4(1) D
Notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated
8.9.1982. Undoubtedly, the Notification under Section 6, dated 19.12.1983
has been !D-ade and published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette within the period
of three years prescribed under the proviso. This declaration, however, has
been quashed in the present proceedings. The question is whether a fresh E
declaration under Section 6 of the said Act can be made in respect of any
land notified under Section 4(1) by the Notification of 24.8.1982 after the
expiry of ·three years from the date of publication of the Notification under
Section 4(1). The answer is clearly in the negative.

      The respondents have relied upon Explanation 1 to the proviso which      F
provides that in computing the period of three years the period during
which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to the Notification
under Section 4(1) is stayed by an order of court shall be excluded. In the
case of the appellant such a stay was obtained by them from the High Court
of Madras on 20.4.1987. This was long after the expiry of the period of
three years provided under the proviso to Section 6. Even if one excludes      G
the period during which the subsequent stay operated, the issuance of a
fresh declaration under Section 6 would be clearly beyond the period of
three years prescribed under the proviso to Section 6. Since the prohibition
on issuance of a declaration under Section 6 after the expiry of three years
from the date of the publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) is     H
    466                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   absolute, the High Court could not have given any direction permitting
    issuance of the declaration under Section 6 within six months from the date
    of its judgment.

           It is, however, urged by the respondents that we should also take into
    account the stay granted by the High Court of Madras on 7.10.1985 in
B   respect of a writ petition which was filed by an adjoining land owner whose
    land was also notified under the same Notification dated 24.8.1982. Even
    this stay is beyond the period of three years from the date of publication
    of the said Notification under Section 4(1) in the Tamil Nadu Gazette-the
    date being 8.9.1982.
c         The respondents further drew our attention to an order of stay dated
    27.10.1987 granted by the Minister for Local Administration on a petition
    which was filed by the adjoining fand owner before the Government. Such
    a stay, however, cannot be taken into account for the purposes of Explana-
    tion 1 since Explanation 1 requires that the order of stay should be passed
D   by a court. In any event a stay in respect of proceedings pertaining to an
    adjacent land cannot be availed of by the respondents in calculating the
    period of three years within which the declaration under Section 6 is
    required to be made in respect of the appellant's land.

           In the premises, the appeal is allowed and the directions of the· High
E   Court regar~ing a fresh enquiry under Section 5A and a declaration under
    Section 6 to be issued within six months of the impugned judgment if the
    Government decides to proceed with the acquisition, as also the direction
    that the award shall be passed within four months thereafter, are set aside.
    In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
F          In view of the above findings nothing now survives in the contempt
    petition No. 262/94 taken out by the appellant in these proceedings. There
    will, therefore, be no order on the contempt petition.

    T.N.A.                                                      Appeal allowed.