URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, UDAIPURversusBHERU LAL AND ORS.

A                 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, UDAIPUR
                                  v.
                          BHERU LAL AND ORS.

                               SEPTEMBER 20, 2002

B              [M.13. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.]


          Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1) and 6(1)-declaration under
   Section 6(1)-Periad of limitation-DeclaraiiOn inade within one year from
C publication of notification under Section 4(1)-Publication thereof beyond
   one year-whether within period of limitation-Publication of notification
    under section 4(1) in newspaper prior to publication in official gazette-
   subsequent publication after publication in official gazel/e--Relevant date
   for computing limitation period of declaration under Section 6(/)-Held,
   notification under Section 6(1) is made within prescribed period-Publication
D ofnotification under Section 4(1) in official gazette being condition precedent
   for acquisition of land, date of publication subsequent thereto is the relevant
  ·date for computing period of limitation for declaration under Section 6(1).

          Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Land acquisition
    proceedings-Acquisition for housing scheme-Delay in filing writ petitions
E   challenging the proceedings-Held, Court should take care in not
    entertaining the petitions on the ground of delay as it is likely to cause
    serious prejudice to the persons for whose benefit the scheme was framed and
    in having planned development of the area-Laches.

F         In this appeal, land acquisition proceedings were challenged by way of
    writ petition before High Court, after about two years from the date of
    publication of notification under Section 6 in the official gazette. Single Judge
    of High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Division Bench of High Court
    allo~d the appeals and quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground
    that pbblication of notices in the newspapers prior to June 1992, the date of
G   publication of notification in the official gazette 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 ); and that since 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
H
                                          512
               URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. BHERU LAL                          513

 subsequent proceedings were void.                                                   A
       In appeal to this Court, respondents contended that the notices published
 in the daily n~wspaper in March/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), and subsequent publication of
 notices on 17/19.5.1993 was required to be ignored. Appellant contended that,       B
 on the ground of laches in filing the writ petitions, the Court ought to have
 dismissed the same.

       Disposing of the appeals, the Court

           HELD: I.I The finding of Division Bench of High Court cannot be           C
 sustained in view of Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
 Declaration itnder Section 6(1) 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 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       D
 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 authorized officer to such Government. (518-E, Fl

      S.H. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka and Anr., (2002] I SCC 538;
 Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P. and Ors .. (19761 I SCC 843 and Sriniwas            E
 Khatodv. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1200211SCC689, relied on.

       1.2. In the instant case, the relevant dates for consideration would be
 17119.5.1993 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                  F
 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
 relevant date as 24.5.1994 for setting at naught the land acquisition
 proceeding cannot be justified. (518-G, HJ
                                                                                     G
       2. I. The contention that the notices published in the daily newspapers
  in March/April, 1990 were required to be taken into consideration for
  computing the period of limitation of one year for the purpose of making
· declaration u/s 6(1) and subsequent publication of notices on 17/19.5.1993
  was required to be ignored, has been rightly rejected by the High Court. For       H
    514                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   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. Publication of the Notification under Section 4(1)
    being a condition precedent for acquisition of land, the said date is required
    to be taken into consideration for counting the period of limitation of one year
B   and the previous publication of notices in the newspapers was rightly ignored
    by the High Court.1519-C-GI

        Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal,
    1198513SCC1 and State of Har)Jana and Anr. v. Raghubir Dayal, 1199511
c   sec 133, referred to.
          2.2. Notification under Section 4(1) was first published in the official
    gazette in June, 1992. Thereafter substance was published in November, 1992
    at conspicuous places and subsequently it was published in the local
    newspapers. Considering this sequence of publication, even if there is some
D   delay, it would not mean that on this ground the land acquisition proceedings
    under Section 4 require to be set aside. 1520-BI

          State of HW)'ana and Anr. v. Raghubir Dayal and Ors., (1995] 1 sec
    133, relied on.

E         3. In the instant case, 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
F   framed under the Urban Development Act and also in having planned
    development of the area.1519-C-EI

         Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Zaver Chand Popat/al Sumaria and Ors.,
    1199614 SCC 579 and Hari Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 119841
G   3 SCR 417, referred to

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4065of1999.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1998 of the Rajasthan High
    Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 204 of 1997.

H                                        WITH
    URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. BHERU LAL [M.B. SHAH . .1.) 515

     CA Nos. 4066-4104, 4106-4118/99, 858, 2603, 4344/2000, 2410, 526312001,   A
6060,6055,6059,6057,6062,6056,6058,6061 and 6054/2002.

      R.P. Bhatt, Vijay K. Mehta, Atul Y. chitrale, Sanjib Sen, Ravikesh K.
Sinha, Mrs. Suchitra A. Chitale, Rajendra Singhvi, Satish K. Agnihotri, Ms.
K.V. Bharati Upadhyay, Ranji Thomas, J.M. Rao, Anil Mittal, Ms. Sheela Goel,
Prakash Shrivastava and Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the appearing parties.         B
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SHAH, J, Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

       The notification under Section 4 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 C
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made by the State of Rajasthan on
21st Febraury, 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 D
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 E
execution of the Scheme.

       Before the notification could be published in the official gazette, the
Gram Panchayat Bhuwana filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2255of1991 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 F
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.
                                                                               G
       Meanwhile the status quo as it exists today with respect to the land
       in question will be maintained."

       That writ petition when came up for hearing on 28. I 0.1994, was not
pressed and was dismissed as withdrawn.
                                                                               H
    516                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        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 1st
    April, 1990 in the daily newspapers.
B
          -On 4.6.1992 notification under Section 4( I) 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.
c
          -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 (I) was made.

D         -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 (I) was published in
    local newspapers.

E         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
F   number of other land owners have not challenged the land acquisition
    proceedings.

         The learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated I0.1.1997 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
G 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
H under Section 4( I) of the Act, cannot be considered for the purpose of
         URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. BHERU LAL [M.B. SHAH, J.] 517

     determining the period of limitation for declaration made under Section 6(1).      A
     The last date of publication of the substance of notification under Section
     4(1) was 19.5.1993 and as the notification under Section 6was 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        B
     of the Act as well as the decision rendered by this Court in S.H. Rangappa
     v. State of Karnataka and Anr., [2002] 1 SCC 538 and Khadim Hussain v.
     State of U.P. and Ors., [1976] I SCC 843.

          We would first refer to relevant ingredients of Section 4(1) of the Act,      C
     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      D
                  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           E
                      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".
                                                                                        F
           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     G
     Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under
     Section SA (2) that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company-

            (I)   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,                                 H
    518                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          (2)       different declarations could be made from time to time in respect
                     of different parcels of any land covered by th'e same notification
                     under Section 4(1) of the Act.
          I·
               (3)   Further, under the 1st proviso to the said section, it is inter alia
                     provided that no declaration in respect of a particular land covered   ..
B                    by notification under Section 4( I) 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 arid in two daily
    newspapers circulated in the locality and also the Collector is required to
C   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( I) and 6(1), it is
    apparent that under Section 4(1) publication in the official gazette is a condition
    precedent for acquiring the land.
D
         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
E from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4( I) 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
F 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
G 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
H cannot be justified.
    URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. BHERU LAL [M.B. SHAH, J.] 519

      Further, the aforesaid question is concluded by three Judge Bench A
decision of this Court in S.H. Rangappa 's case (supra), whe.rein 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( I) of the Act. For this purpose, the Court referred to the earlier B
decision in Khadim Hussain's case (supra). The same view is taken in the case .
of Sriniwas Ramnath Khau~.d v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2002) I SCC
689.                             .,..
       The learned senior counsel Mr. R.P. Bhatt appearing for the respondents C
submitted that the not1ces which were published in the daily newsp~p~rs on
31st March, 1990 and 1st 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/ D
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( I) in the official gazette is mandatory. If
the decision taken by the Government to acquire the land is not notified in E
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 F
of the notification in the official gazette under Section 4( I). Re: Collector
(District Magistrate), Allahabad and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, (1985) 3 SCC
 I and State of Haryana and Anr. v. Raghubir Dayal, [1995) I 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
consideration for counting the period of limitation of one year and the previous G
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 H
    520                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B   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 Hwyana and Anr. v. Raghubir Dayal and Ors.,
    [1995] 1 sec 133 para 7.
c        Further, learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that on the
  ground of delay and !aches 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
D a public purpose, that too for a scheme framed under the Urban Development
  Act, tht: 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. 8eliance Petroleum ltd. v. Zaver Chand Popat/al
E Sumaria and Ors., [1996] 4 SCC 579 and Hari Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P.
  and Ors.. [I984] 3 SCR417.

          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.
F   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.
                                                                                      ;
G         There shall be no order as to costs.

    K.K.T.                                                  Appeals disposed of.