AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Padmanabhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed to quash the land acquisition proceedings, which were initiated by the publication of 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 4(1) notification was
published on 8th April, 1970 and consequently, the Respondents will not be entitled to make a Section 6 declaration without a fresh 4(1)
notification. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer to certain dates, which are not in dispute. The notification u/s 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act was first published on 8th April, 1970. Immediately, the present Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1664 of 1970 to quash the
proceedings on the ground that Section 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 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 Section 5-A enquiry. Against the said judgment the Respondents filed Writ Appeal 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 conducing the 5-A enquiry. After the judgment in the writ appeal, which was passed on 9th July, 1975 no
declaration u/s 6 was issued till 24th July, 1978. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the
Respondents from taking further proceedings pursuant to the 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, 1975 the date on which the writ appeal was dismissed, is excluded, no declaration u/s 6 had been made within a period of three
years. No such declaration had also been made till the Petitioner obtained interim injunction in this writ petition on 24th July, 1978.
The first proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:
Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification u/s 4, Sub-section (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. D. 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 Section 6 declaration within time. The fact that the records were in this Court
subsequent to the date of dismissal of Writ Appeal No. 109 of 1974 on 9th July, 1975 cannot certainly be a ground to exclude the application of
the first proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The learned Government Pleader then brought to any notice the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1980 (Act XLI of 1980).
Section 2 of the said Act reads:
In Sub-section (1) of Section 4 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-section (1) of Section 4 is held up on account of stay or injunction by order of a court, shall be
excluded.
Section 3 reads as follows:
Validation of certain declaration. Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court to the contrary, no declaration made u/s 6 of the
principal Act in respect of any land covered by a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 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 after the expiry of three years from the
date of publication of such notification, if the three years period aforesaid would not have expired, had 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 Section 2 of this Act had been in force, at all material times, when such
declarations were made.
In view of Section 3, the amended Section 2 clearly applies to the facts 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-section (1) of Section 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 slay 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 Section 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 Section 6. I, therefore, held that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act covered by this case are hit by the
first proviso to Section 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.