Holding

The declaration was published within three years of the High Court’s order, so Section 11‑A does not cause lapse; the notification and declaration remain in force.

Summary

The State of Karnataka filed a land acquisition proceeding against B.S. Nanjundaiah under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4(1) was published on 6 December 1973 and a declaration under Section 6 on 3 February 1975, but the respondent challenged them for lack of an enquiry under Section 5‑A. The Karnataka High Court ordered such an enquiry, which was finally completed in July 1985 and a fresh declaration was published on 10 April 1986. The High Court held that the three‑year period prescribed in Section 6(1) had expired in 1977, causing the notification and declaration to lapse under Section 11‑A. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the limitation period restarted after the High Court’s order and concluded that it did, so the declaration was within three years of the order and Section 11‑A did not apply. Consequently, the notification and declaration remain valid and the appeal was allowed, directing the authorities to complete the award enquiry promptly.

Issues considered

Whether the three‑year period for publishing a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act expired, thereby invoking Section 11‑A to lapse the notification and declaration.
Whether the limitation period restarts from the date of the High Court’s order directing an enquiry under Section 5‑A.
Whether the High Court’s view that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed is legally correct.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11-A, s. 4(1), s. 5-A, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionLimitation periodSection 11-ADeclaration lapseSection 5-A enquiryKarnataka

Judgment

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. A
v.
B.S. NANJUNDAIAH

JANUARY 11, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Sections 4(1 ), 5-A, 6 & 11-Notification-lssue of-Publication of
declaration within three years from date of order of High Court-Hence S.11- C
A not attracted-Notification and declaration did not lapse.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2331of1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.91 of the Karoakata High
Court in W.P. No. 9544 of 1986. D
K.H. Nobin Singh and M. Veerappa for the Appellants.

Girish Ananthamurthy and K.K. Gupta for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E

•
Leave granted.
.
We have heard the counsel on both sides .
.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of
Karoatakamade on February 15, 1991 in W.P. No. 9544/86. Notification under F
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was initially published on December
6, 1973. The declaration under S.ection 6 was published on February 3, 1975.
Writ petition No. 10402n7 was filed in the High Court challenging the
notification under Section 4( I) and the declaration under Section 6 questioning
the act of the Government in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. G
The Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court on July 27, 1984 directing
the appellant to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A from the stage where
the objections were filed by the respondent. Thereafter, the copy of the record
was received by the Land Acquisition Officer on January 19, 1985. Notice
under Section 5-A was given on. February 20, 1985 and after giving
H
379
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] I S.C.R.
A reasonable opportunity to the respondent, enquiry was concluded and the
Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report to the Government on July 31,
1985. The declaration under Section 6 was published on April 10, 1986. The
respondent again filed the writ petition in the High Court on June 7, 1986
challenging the validity of the notikarion under Section 4(1) and the
declaration under Section 6.
B
The High Court in the impugned judgment has held that from
December 6, 1973 till October II, 1977, there was no order of Court staying
the proceedings by which date the three years' period prescribed under • -
Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had expired by efflux of time and
C the declaration under Section 6 came to be published on April 10, 1986.
Consequently, the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under
Section 6 stood lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the Act, as amended
by Act 68 of 1984.

It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that the view of the
D High Court is clearly illegal. In view of the fact that the notification under
Section 6 was quashed giving liberty to the Government to proceed with the
acquisition from that stage and consider the objections raised by the respond-
ent, the declaration under Section 6 came to be published within two years
thereafter. Therefore, the declaration under Section 6 had not lapsed. Conse-
E quently section 11-A has no application. It is contended for the respondent that
as pointed out by the High Court from 1973 to 1977, there was no impediment
for the appellants to have the declaration published under Section 6 within
•
there years since the declaration was not published, the High Court was right
in holding that the land acquisition proceedings shall stand lapsed.

F Having considered the respective contentions, the question arises whether
the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. It is true that from the date
of the notification published Section 4(1) till October 11, 1977 there was no
stay granted by the Court and the three years period had lapsed. But,
unfortunately, the point was not convassed before the High Court iii the first
G proceedings. Consequently, by operation of explanation (iv) to Section 11, it
was open to the respondent to raise that contention. But since that point was
not pressed for consideration by constructive res judicata, the question is no
longer to be considered by the High Court.

It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer received the record on
H January 19, 1985. He issued the notice under Section 5-A to consider the
STATE v. B.S. NANJUNDAIAH 381
objections filed by the respondent on February 20, 1995. Thereby there is
a delay of one month between the date of receiving the record and the date
of issuing the notice. Thereafter the proceedings went on from time to time
at the instance of the parties. Ultimately, the arguments were concluded on
July 31, 1985. Therefore, the limitation, again began to run from August 1,
1985. The declaration was published on April 10, 1986. Therefore, the
declaration, after the order was set aside, in the proceedings of the first writ
petition was published within three years from the date of the order. By
operation of Clause (i) to proviso to sub-section (I) of section 6 the
declaration has been published within three years from the date of the order
passed by the High Court. Consequently, the operation of section 11-A is not
attracted to the facts of this case. As a result,- neither the notification under
Section 4(1) nor the declaration under Section 6 shall stand lapsed. The
appellants are directed to conduct and conclude the award enquiry as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the
date of the receipt of this order.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.