http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: EUGENIO MISQUITA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GOA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/09/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami. J.      Though before  the High  Court of  Bombay. Panaji Bench (Goa) three  questions were  raised and  answered, before us learned counsel  for the appellants confined the argument to one of  the questions  raised before the High Court, namely, whether  the   declaration  made/published  under  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (hereinafter  called the  ‘Act’)  was barred by limitation.      To appreciate  the above  question, certain   dates are necessary. Initially  a Notification  under Section  4(1) of the Act  for  acquiring  land  for  construction  and  black topping of  St.  Sebastian  Chapel  Road  was  published  on 8.11.90. That  Notification  lapsed  as  no  declaration  as required under  Section 6 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 was  made. Therefore,  a fresh  Notification  was  made under Section  4(1) of  the Act  for  the  same  purpose  on 23.6.92. The  said Notification under Section 4(1) was first published in  the English  daily "O Heraldo" on 29.6.92, and in the  Marathi daily  "Nav Prabha" on 2.7.92. Public Notice in the  locality of  the Notification was given on 8.7.92 as required  under  Section  4  of  the  Act.  Lastly,  it  was published in  the Official  Gazette of the Goa Government on 6.8.;92. Immediately  the validity  of the said Notification was  challenged  in  Writ  Petition  No.436/92  as  "urgency provision" under  Section 17(4) of the Act was also invoked. The High  Court allowed  the Writ  Petition on  25.11.92  by directing the  appellants (  writ  petitioners  before  High Court) to  file their  objections under  Section  5A  on  or before 4.12.92  and directing  the respondents to decide the said objections  on or  before 18.12.92  after  hearing  the aggrieved parties.  After complying  with the  directions of the High Court, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on  3.8.93 and it was published in the Official Gazette on 5.8.93.  The same  declaration was  published in  Marathi daily "Gomantak" on 6.8.93 and in the English daily "Navhind Times"  on   7.8.93  respectively.   Public  Notice  of  the declaration was  given in  the locality  on  28.8.93.  Under these circumstances,  the appellants challenged the validity of the  declaration under  Section 6  on the ground that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

publication of  the declaration  was beyond  one year taking 28.8.93 as  the date  of  publication  and,  therefore,  the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.      The contention  advanced on  behalf of  the  appellants before the  High Court  was that  on a correct understanding and interpretation  of Section  6(1) &  (2), of the Act, the declaration must  be taken  to have  been made/published for the purpose  of proviso  to Section  6(a)(ii) on the date on which the  last in  the series of publications under Section 6(2) was  published. In  this case, it was in 28.8.93. If so understood on  the facts  of this  case,  according  to  the appellants, the  declaration having  been published  in  the locality on  28.8.93 it was beyond one year prescribed under proviso to  Section 6(1)(ii)  of the  Act.  Therefore,  that declaration was  barred by limitation. On the other hand, it was contended  before  the  High  Court  on  behalf  of  the authorities that  under Section  6(1) the  relevant date for the  purpose  of  limitation  was  the  date  on  which  the declaration was  made and  that declaration having been made on 3.8.93  was  well  within  one  year  from  the  date  of Notification  published   under  Section  4(1),  namely,  on 6.8.92. The  High Court in the light of the earlier Division Bench judgment of the same Court held as followed:-      "Applying the  ratio of  these  two      decisions, it is clear that Section      4  Notification  was  published  in      Government Gazette  on  6th  August      1992 and  in fact that was the last      of such  publications.  3rd  August      1993 and  it is  common ground that      it was  published in the Government      Gazette on  5th August 1993. It is,      therefore, clear  that regard being      had to  the date  of making  of the      declaration under  Section 6, which      is 3rd August 1993, it falls within      the  limitation   prescribed   and,      therefore, it  cannot be  held that      the publication  of the declaration      is    outside     the    limitation      prescribed under the Act."      Mr. Dhruv  Mehta, learned  counsel for  the appellants, elaborately argued the matter bringing to our notice several judgments of  the High  Court and of this Court both for and against the  appellants. In  short, the  argument of learned counsel for  the appellants  was that  having regard  to the language employed  in sub-section  (2) of  Section 6  of the Act, the  last in the series of publication must be taken as the last  in the  series of publication must be taken as the date  of   publication  for   calculating   the   limitation prescribed under  proviso to  Section 6(1)(ii)  of the  Act. According to learned counsel, the purpose of introducing the limitation of  one year  by Act  68 of  1984 was to make the officials concerned to speed up the proceedings and to avoid the delay. This object, according to him, cannot be achieved unless the  construction of  Section 6 as advanced by him is accepted. He  heavily  placed  reliance  on  a  judgment  on Rajasthan High  Court in Jagrup Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.  _ AIR  1993 Rajasthan  157. He  also brought  to our notice, in  all fairness,  a recent  judgment of  this Court reported in  Krishi Utpadan  Mandi Samiti & Anr. Vs. Makrand Singh &  Ors. -  (1995)2 SCC  497, which  holds against  the contention now  advanced by  the learned  counsel.  He  also brought to  our notice  a decision  of the Kerala High Court which is also against the appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

    We would have dealt with the matter elaborately but for the recent  judgment of  this Court in Krishi Mandi Samiti’s case (supra),  which is  directly  on  the  point  answering identical contentions  raised before  this Court in the said judgment.      Still, we  would like  to give our reasons in brief for reaching the same conclusion.      Sections 4(1),  6(1) &  (2) and  Section 11-A  read  as follows:-      "Section    4.    Publication    of      preliminary notification and powers      of officers thereupon-      (1)  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  in  two      daily  newspapers   circulating  in      that locality of which at least one      shall be  in the  regional language      and  the   Collector  shall   cause      public notice  of the  substance of      such notification  to be  given  at      convenient  places   in  the   said      locality (the  last of the dates of      such publication  and the giving of      such    public     notice,    being      hereinafter referred to as the date      of   the    publication   of    the      notification."      "Section 6.  Declaration that  land      is required for a public purpose -      (1) Subject  to  the  provision  of      Part VII  of  this  Act,  when  the      appropriate      Government      is      satisfied,  after  considering  the      report, if  any, made under Section      5-A,  sub-section   (2),  that  any      particular land  is  needed  for  a      public purpose, or for a company, a      declaration shall  be made  to that      effect under  the  signature  of  a      Secretary to  such Government or of      some  officer  duly  authorized  to      certify  its  order  and  different      declarations may  be made from time      to time  in  respect  of  different      parcels of  any land covered by the      same notification  under Section 4,      sub-section (a),  irrespectively of      whether  one  report  of  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),-      (i)     published     after     the      commencement    of     the     Land      Acquisition     (Amendment      and      Validation) Ordinance,  1967 (1  of      1967), but  before the commencement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

    of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)      Act, 1984,  shall be made after the      expiry of three years from the date      of the publication; or      (ii)    published     after     the      commencement    of     the     Land      Acquisition (Amendment)  Act, 1984,      shall be  made after  the expiry of      one  year  from  the  date  of  the      publication of the notification:      Provided  further   that  no   such      declaration shall  be  made  unless      the compensation  to be awarded for      such property  is  to  be  paid  by      company, or wholly or partly out of      public  revenues   or   some   fund      controlled or  managed by  a  local      authority.      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 small be excluded.      Explanation   2    -   Where    the      compensation to be awarded for such      property is  to be  paid out of the      funds of  a  corporation  owned  or      controlled  by   the  State,   such      compensation shall  be deemed to be      compensation  paid  out  of  public      revenues.      (2)  Every   declaration  shall  be      published in  the Official gazette,      and   in   two   daily   newspapers      circulating  in   the  locality  in      which the  land is situate of which      at  least   one  shall  be  in  the      regional    language,    and    the      Collector shall cause public notice      of   the    substance    of    such      declaration   to    be   given   at      convenient  places   in  the   said      locality (the  last of the dates of      such publication  and the giving of      such    public     notice,    being      hereinafter referred to as the date      of   the    publication   of    the      declaration), and  such declaration      shall state  the district  or other      territorial division  in which  the      land is  situate, the  purpose  for      which it is needed, its approximate      area, and,  where a plan shall have      been made  of the  land, the  place      where such plan may be inspected."      "Section 11-A - Period within which      an award shall be made -      The Collector  shall make  an award      under Section 11 within a period of      two years  from  the  date  of  the      publication of  the declaration and      if no  award is  made  within  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

    period, the  entire proceedings for      the acquisition  of the  land shall      lapse:      Provided that  in a  case where the      said declaration has been published      before the commencement of the Land      Acquisition (Amendment)  Act, 1984,      the award  shall be  made within  a      period  of   two  years  from  such      commencement.      Explanation  -   In  computing  the      period of  two years referred to in      this  section,  the  period  during      which any  action or proceeding  to      be taken  in pursuance  of the said      declaration is  stayed by  an order      of a court shall be excluded."      It is  now well  settled that  the last of the dates in the series  of the  publications made under Section 4 (1) of the Act is the relevant date to reckon the starting point of limitation for  the purpose of proviso to Section 6(1) (ii). Now, the  question is  which is  the relevant date to reckon the last  date for  the purpose  of proviso  to Section  (1) (ii). In  other words,  whether  the  modes  of  publication prescribed under  Section 6(2)  obviously for the purpose of reckoning limitation  under Section 11-A of the Act have any part  to   play  in  the  matter  of  computing  the  period prescribed under proviso to Section 6(1)(ii).      According  to   the  learned  counsel,  the  limitation prescribed under  proviso to  Section  6(1)(ii)  has  to  be construed with  reverence to  the different dates / modes of publication prescribed  under Section  6(2) of  the Act.  In support of  this submission,  learned counsel  refers to the judgments of  this Court rendered on Section 4(1) of the Act holding that  the last  of the  dates of such publication in the series  is the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under proviso to Section 6(1) (ii).      Let us  examine whether the learned counsel is right in his submission.  As seen from the above extracts of relevant provisions,  while  Section  4(1)  commands  publication  of notification under  that Section.  Section 6  speaks of  the declaration being  made to  the effect  that any  particular land is  needed for  public purpose  or for a company. There are judicial decisions that have interpreted the word ‘made’ to  mean   ‘published’  for  the  reasons  stated  in  those decisions.  Therefore,  strictly  speaking,  but  for  those decisions.  Therefore,  strictly  speaking,  but  for  those judicial decisions  the date  of making  of the  declaration under Section  6(1) will  be the relevant date for reckoning the period  of  limitation.  However,  in  the  interest  of general public,  the courts  have taken  the view  that  the declaration made  will stand  accomplished only  when it  is published. This  publication has,  therefore, nothing  to do with the  publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the Act which is  for a different purpose, inter alia, for reckoning the limitation  prescribed under  Section 11-A  of the  Act. This construction  is supported  by the language employed in Section  6(2)   of  the   Act.  In   particular,  the   word "hereinafter" used in Section 6(2) will amply prove that the last of  the series  of the  publication referred  to  under Section 6(2) is relevant for the purposes coming thereafter, namely, for  making award  under Section  11-A. The language employed in  second proviso  to Section  6 (1) also supports this construction.  Therefore,  the  contention  of  learned counsel cannot be accepted.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

    This is  also the  view taken  by this  Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi  Samiti’s case.  The learned Judges framed the question thus:-      "The question,  therefore, is  that      which date  of the  publications in      three steps i.e. publication in the      Gazette, two  newspapers and  local      publication to be the last date for      the  purpose   of  computing  three      years  limitation   prescribed   in      clause  (1)   of  the   proviso  to      Section 6(1) of the Act."      It may  be noted  that this  Court  in  that  case  was considering a  case which arose before the coming into force of the  Amending Act 68 of 1984. The case on hand has arisen after the  Amending Act  68 of  1984. The  case on  hand has arisen  after   the  Amending  Act  68  of  1984.  The  only difference is  the  period  of  limitation:  for  the  cases arising before  the Amending  Act it was three years and one year  for   the  cases   arising  after  the  Amending  Act. Otherwise, the  principle is  the same.  The learned  Judges after referring to the relevant provisions observed thus:-      "The question,  therefore, is  that      which date  of the  publications in      three steps i.e. publication in the      Gazette, two  newspapers and  local      publication to be the last date for      the  purpose   of  computing  three      years  limitation   prescribed   in      Clause  (i)   of  the   proviso  to      Section  6(1)  of  the  Act.  Prima      facie, it  gives an impression that      the last  of any of the three steps      puts  in  motion,  the  running  of      limitation of three years.      ...................................      .........................      So it  is necessary  to  understand      the scheme and policy of the Act to      get the crux of the question.      ...................................      .........................      It would  be seen  that the purpose      of notification  under Section 4(1)      is an  intimation to  the owner  or      person having  an interest  in  the      land that  Government exercised the      power of eminent domain in relation      to his  land and for public purpose      his land  is needed or likely to be      needed:  puts  an  embargo  on  his      freedom to deal with the land as an      unencumbered land and also pegs the      price of  the land prevailing as on      that date.  It also  is a caveat to      the Collector  to  make  the  award      under Section  11  as  well  as  to      determine    the    market    value      prevailing as  on the  last of  the      dates to  be the date and the award      should  be  made  within  a  period      prescribed by  Section  11-A,  lest      the entire  acquisition shall stand      lapsed. The  word ‘hereinafter’  is      for such  purposes as  well as  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

    the purpose of determination of the      compensation under  Chapter III  of      the Act  as  well.  Therefore,  the      word hereinafter referred to as the      last date of the publication of the      notification is the date from which      the prevailing  prices of  the land      is to be computed etc."      ...................................      ...................................      ...................................      ...............      The last  date under  Section  6(2)      shall be  the date for the purposes      "hereinafter referred  to" would be      not for  computing  the  period  of      three years  prescribed  in  clause      (i) if  proviso to  Section 6(1) of      the Act as it was already done. But      purposes     to     be     followed      hereinafter.   Otherwise   language      would   have   been   "hereinbefore      done". Sub-section  (2) as such did      not prescribe any limitation within      which the declaration under Section      6(1) or  other steps hereinafter to      be taken, in other words, the steps      to be  taken thereafter  in  making      the award  under Section  11 or  in      computation    of     the    period      prescribed  in  Section  11-A.  The      publication of  the declaration  in      two   daily    newspapers    having      circulation in  the locality one of      which is  in the  regional language      and   the    publication   of   the      substance of the declaration in the      locality are  ministerial acts  and      is a  procedural part.  It  appears      that   these    publications    are      required to  be done  to  make  the      declaration   published    in   the      manner, to  be conclusive  evidence      of the public purpose under Section      6(1) and also to provide limitation      to make the award under Section 11-      A is  for the purpose of making the      award and if the Collector fails to      do so,  the entire  proceeds  under      Sections 4(1)  and 6(1) shall stand      lapsed. If  this consistent  policy      of the  Act  is  understood  giving      teeth to  the operational  efficacy      to the scheme of the Act and public      purpose the  Act seeks to serve, we      are of  the  considered  view  that      publication in the Official Gazette      already made  under clause  (i)  of      proviso  to   sub-section  (1)   of      Section 6  is complete,  as soon as      the declaration  under Section 6(1)      was  published   in  the   Official      Gazette. That  will be the date for      the purpose of computation of three      years period  from the  last of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

    dates of  the  publication  of  the      notification  under  Section  4(1).      The  procedural   ministerial  acts      prescribed  under  sub-section  (2)      are only  for the  purpose  of  the      procedure    to     be     followed      ‘hereinafter’, in  other words, the      steps to be taken subsequent to the      publication  of   the   declaration      under Section  6(1) of  the Act. We      cannot agree  with Shri  Rana,  the      learned Senior  Counsel,  that  the      date of  making the  declaration by      the Secretary  to the Government or      the authorised  officer is the date      for  computing   period  of   three      years.  Equally,  we  cannot  agree      with the  learned counsel  for  the      respondents,  Shri  Upadhyay,  that      publication of  the substance being      the last date from which the period      of  three   years   needs   to   be      computed.  Acceptance   of   either      contention would  easily defeat the      public  policy  under  the  Act  by      skilful manner  of management  with      the lower level officials."      In Lt.  K. Padmadas  Vs. State  of Kerala  & Ors. - AIR 1992 Kerala  158, a  Division Bench of the Kerala High Court while answering an identical question held as follows:-      "In this  view of  the matter,  the      last date  of publication envisaged      by S.4(1)  is 28.6.1989.  Being so,      the order  of the  Board of Revenue      made on 30.4.90 and the declaration      under S.6  published in the gazette      on 29.5.1990  are within the period      prescribed by  the first proviso to      sub-section (1) of S.6, namely, one      year from  the date  of publication      of the notification under S.4(1).      The question  then  arises  whether      all the  requirements  of  a  valid      declaration as  laid down  in  sub-      section   (2)    of   S.6,   namely      publication in two daily newspapers      and in the official gazette and the      giving  of  public  notice  in  the      locality should  be  complied  with      within  the  period  prescribed  in      sub-s. (7).  It is  stated that the      sub-section  defines  the  date  of      publication of  the declaration  as      the  last   of  the  dates  of  the      publication in  the gazette and the      newspapers and the giving of public      notice and therefore unless all the      publications and  the public notice      fall within  the one  year  period,      the bar  of the  first provision to      S.6(1) operates. The publication in      the gazette was on 29.5.1990 and in      the Kerala  Times  and  Mathrubhumi      dailies on  29.5.1990 and  4.6.1990      respectively. The counter-affidavit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

    of the  third respondent  does  not      disclose as  to when  public notice      was given in the locality.      We must  even at the outset mention      that a  plea in  this form  has not      been put  forward  at  the  earlier      stages. The  contention before  the      learned Single  Judge  (as  evident      from paragraph  7 of  his judgment)      was that  the declaration under S.6      should have  been made  within  one      year  of  the  publication  in  the      newspapers. The respondents did not      therefore have  any opportunity  of      meeting  the  present  case  or  of      placing before  court the necessary      details regarding the public notice      of the declaration in the locality.      We  need   not  however   rest  our      decision on  this point  as we  are      even otherwise  of the opinion that      the declaration  under S.6  was  in      time, in  view of  the publications      effected on 29.5.1990.      Sub-section (2) of S.6 reads:      "Every   declaration    shall    be      published in  the Official Gazette,      and   in   two   daily   newspapers      circulating  in   the  locality  in      which the  land is situate of which      at  least   one  shall  be  in  the      regional    language,    and    the      Collector shall cause public notice      of   the    substance    of    such      declaration   to    be   given   at      convenient  places   in  the   said      locality (the  last of the dates of      such publication  and the giving of      such    public     notice,    being      hereinafter referred to as the date      of   the    publication   of    the      declaration), and  such declaration      shall state  the district  or other      territorial division  in which  the      land is  situate, the  purpose  for      which it is needed, its approximate      area, and,  where a plan shall have      been made  of the  land, the  place      where such plan may be inspected."      It is evident from the parenthesis,      which   is   relevant,   that   any      reference   in    the    subsequent      provisions of  the Act, to the date      of publication  of the declarations      is to  be taken  as the last of the      dates of publication and the giving      of public  notice. The  use of  the      expression  "hereinafter   referred      to"  makes   it  clear   that   the      definition  of  the  last  date  of      publication is  for the  purpose of      the subsequent  provisions  of  the      Act. It  is not possible to project      it back  for the  purpose of sub-s.      (a).  The   High  Court  of  Andhra

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

    Pradesh had  taken the same view in      (1991) 2  Andh LT  (Notes on Recent      Cases)  page   41(2)  between   the      Executive Officer.  T.T.D. Vs. N.S.      Venugopal (to  which one of us, the      Chief Justice, was a party). We are      in agreement  with this  view.  The      publication of  the declaration  in      the   gazette   on   29.5.1990   is      therefore   within    the    period      prescribed by  sub-section (1)  and      therefore the  proceedings are  not      vitiated in any manner."      Undoubtedly, the  judgment of  Rajasthan High  Court in Jagrup Singh  (supra) supports  the contention raised by the learned counsel  for the  appellants. A learned Single Judge of the  High Court  differing with  the view  taken  by  the Kerala High Court held as follows:-      "Thus,  viewing   from  any  angle,      whether applying  the test of plain      literal dictionary  meaning to  the      language  used   in  the   Act  or,      applying the  test of Mischief Rule      of  interpreting  the  Statute,  or      looking from  the point  of view of      legislative     intention,      the      conclusion is irresistible that the      act of  making it  known public, in      official manner  and, that  act has      to be  performed within a period of      one   year   from   the   date   of      notification under  S.4(1). The act      of making  declaration known in the      official manner has been prescribed      under  S.6(2)   of  the   Act.  The      principle  is   well  settled  that      where   any   statutory   provision      provides a  particular  manner  for      doing particular  act,  then,  that      thing  or   act  must  be  done  in      accordance    with    the    manner      prescribed. Therefore,  the act  of      making  declaration of Government’s      satisfaction  in   regard  to   the      requirement of  the particular land      for any  public purpose is complete      only when the same is made known by      publishing the said satisfaction in      the manner prescribed under S.6(2),      for   the    purpose   of   further      proceedings in  the matter  of land      acquisition, in  terms of the other      provisions of  the Act.  It is only      after  the   publication   of   the      declaration    in     the    manner      prescribed  under  S.6(2)  that  it      becomes  a   declaration  which  is      conclusive proof  of the  fact that      land is  needed for  public purpose      and it  is  only  ‘making  of  such      declaration’,    which    furnishes      conclusive    proof     of     such      satisfaction  that  authorises  the      appropriate Government  to  acquire      land  in   the  manner   thereafter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

    provided under  the Act. It is only      after making  such declaration that      the  appropriate   Government   can      issue directions  to the  Collector      to take  orders for  acquisition of      land under  S.7 of  the Act.  It is      only   after    making   of    such      declaration     which      includes      publication  thereof   also,   that      provisions   of    S.11-A   becomes      effective   in    suppressing   the      mischief  of   which  it  has  been      enacted.      Summing up of aforesaid discussion,      is that making of a declaration u/s      6(1) within  its ambit includes the      act  of   making  the  document  of      declaration  known   or   published      officially.  Sub-sec.  (2)  of  S.6      provides   only    the   modes   of      publication of  declaration in  all      the modes  prescribed under  S.6(2)      has to  be made  within the  period      prescribed under S.6(1)."      The learned  Judge of the Rajasthan High Court is right to a  limited extent  when he  observed: ‘the  conclusion is irresistible that  the act  of ‘making  declaration’ by  the appropriate Government  that any  particular land  is needed for public  purpose, include  the act  of  making  it  known public, in official manner and, that act has to be performed within a  period of  one year  from the date of notification under S.4(1)."  However, the  learned Judge erred in holding thus: "It  is only  after the publication of the declaration in the  manner prescribed  under S.6(2)  that it  becomes  a declaration which  is conclusive  proof of the fact that the land is  needed for public purpose and it is only "making of such declaration",  which furnishes conclusive proof of such satisfaction", because  there is  nothing in  the Statute to suggest by publishing in the Official Gazette the ‘making of declaration’ has  not been achieved nor is there anything in the  Statute   to  show   that  the  modes  of  publications prescribed under  Section 6(2)  notwithstanding the  express language used  in that  Section about  which we have already pointed out,  namely, ‘hereinafter’  those modes also govern the publication  at the  prior stage,  namely, under Section 6(1).      Therefore, we  hold that  the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court does not correctly lay down the law.      In State  of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Dayal - (1995) 1 SCC 133, this Court had occasion to consider the effect of failure to  publish the  substance of  the declaration under Section 6  in the  locality. This Court in that context held thus:-      "The purpose  of publication of the      declaration is  to give  effect  to      the conclusiveness of the extent of      the  land  needed  for  the  public      purpose or  for a  company as  made      under  Section  6(3)  of  the  Act.      Since  there   is  an   opportunity      already given  to the  owner of the      land or  persons having interest in      the land  to raise their objections      during the enquiry under Section 5-      A,  or   otherwise   in   case   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

    dispensing   with   enquiry   under      Section 5-A  unless they  show  any      grave prejudice  caused to  them in      non-publication of the substance of      the declaration under Section 6(1),      the   omission   to   publish   the      substance of  the declaration under      Section 6(1)  in the locality would      not  render   the  declaration   of      Section  6   invalid.  We  are  not      intending to  say that  the officer      should   not    comply   with   the      requirement of  law and it is their      duty   to    do   it.   But   their      dereliction to  do so  per se  does      not render  the  declaration  under      Section 6 illegal or invalid."      The above  view of this Court lends support to the view that  for   the  purpose   of  calculating   the  limitation prescribed under  proviso to Section 6(1)(ii), it is not the last of  the publication  in the series that should be taken into account, but the publication that was made in the first instance under Section 6.      In the  light of  the law  laid down  by this Court, we have no  hesitation to  hold that  the declaration published under Section  6 of the Act was well within one year and the challenge to  the same has been rightly rejected by the High Court. However,  the view  taken in the judgment of the High Court under appeal that the relevant date for reckoning the period of  limitation will  be the  date of  making  of  the declaration under  Section 6, may not be correct. As held in Krishi  Utpadan   Mandi  Samiti’s   case,  mere   making  of declaration is  not enough.  The making of declaration under Section 6  is complete for the purpose of Proviso to Section 6(1)(i) &(ii) when it is published in the official gazette.      On facts  we have seen that the Notification was lastly published on  6.8.92 in the Official Gazette and declaration under Section 6 was published in the Gazette on 5.8.93 which is well within one year. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.