R. Natarajan vs The State of Tamil Nadu, by Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Dept., Madras and Another

Padmanabhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed to quash the land acquisition proceedings which were initiated by the publication of S.4

(1). Notification on 8th April, 1970. The contention of Mr. Duraiswami, learned counsel for the petitioner is that more than three years have

elapsed since the S.4 (1) Notification was published on 8th April 1970, and consequently, the respondents will not be entitled to make a S.6

declaration without a fresh S.4 (1) notification. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to refer to certain dates, which are not in

dispute. The notification under S.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was first published on 8th April, 1970. Immediately, the present petitioner filed

W.P. No. 1664 of 1970 to quash the proceedings on the ground that S.5-A enquiry was being conducted by the same officer who had proposed

and initiated the move for the acquisition of the land. On 28th May, 1970 the petitioner obtained an order of stay of all further proceedings

pursuant to the S.4 (1)notification. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 23rd July 1971, and the order of interim stay was vacated. The

Government was directed to depute another officer for the purpose of conducting S.5-A enquiry. Against the said judgment the respondents filed

W.A. No. 109 of 1974. An order was passed on 9th July, 1975 in that writ appeal stating that the writ appeal shall stand ''closed'' subject to the

observation that there was no impediment in the same officer conducting the S.5A enquiry. After the judgment in the writ appeal, which was

passed on 9th July, 1975 no declaration under S.6 was issued till 24th July, 1978. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ

of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking further proceedings pursuant to the S.4 (1)notification. He also obtained an order of

injunction on 24th July, 1978.

From the above dates it will be clear that even if the period between 28th May, 1970, the date on which the petitioner obtained interim stay and

9th July, 1979 the date on which the writ appeal was dismissed, is excluded, no declaration under S.6 had been made within a period of three

years. No such declaration has also been made till the petitioner obtained interim injunction in this writ petition on 24th July, 1978.

The first proviso to S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows--

Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under S.4, Sub-S. (1), published after the commencement

of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance 1967, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such

publication.

Mr. Krishnan, learned Government Pleader, contends that even though the writ appeal was dismissed on 9th July, 1975, the entire records were

in this Court and consequently, there was difficulty in issuing the S.6 declaration within time. The fact that the records were in this Court subsequent

in the date of dismissal of writ appeal No. 109 of 1974 on 9th April, 1975 cannot certainly be a ground to exclude the application of the first

proviso to S.6of the Land Acquisition Act.

The learned Government Pleader then brought to my notice the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1980 (Act 41 of 1980). S.2

of the said Act reads--

In sub-S. (1) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), to the first

proviso, the following Explanation shall be added, namely--

Explanation.--In computing the period of three years specified in this proviso, any period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in

pursuance of the notification issued under sub-S.(1) of S.4 is held up on account of stay or injunction by order of a Court, shall be excluded.

S.3 reads as follows--

Validation of certain declarations. Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court to the contrary, no declaration made under S.6 of

the principal Act, in respect of any land covered by a notification under sub-S.(1) of S.4, published after the 20th day of January, 1967, shall be

deemed to be invalid or even to have become invalid on the ground that such declaration has been made after the expiry of three years from the

date of publication of such notification, if the three years period aforesaid would not have expired, and the period covered by any stay or injunction

granted by any Court, in respect of any action or proceeding relating to such notification, been excluded in computing the said period of three

years; and all such declarations made and acts done or proceedings taken in pursuance of such declaration, shall be deemed to be and to have

always been validly made, done or taken in accordance with law, as if S.2 of this Act had been in force, at all material times, when such

declaration were made.

In view of S.3, the amended S.6(sic) clearly applies to the facts of of this case. However, the amended section clearly says that only the period

during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-S.(1) of S.4 is held up on account of stay or

injunction by order of a Court, shall be excluded. In this case, the actual period covered by the stay granted by this Court is only the period

between 28th May, 1970 and 23rd July, 1971. Between 23rd July, 1971 and 9th July, 1975 there was no order of Court holding up further

proceedings to be taken pursuant to the S.4 (1)notification. But, even if that period is also excluded, the case is not taken out of the mischief of the

first proviso to S.6. I therefore hold that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act covered by this case are hit by the first proviso to S.6.

Consequently, the rule nisi is made absolute. It will however, be open to the Government to issue a fresh notification and proceed further, if so

advised. No costs.