http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAKRAND SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/12/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (2) 497        JT 1995 (1)   487  1995 SCALE  (1)48

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.These appeals by special leave arise 489 from  the judgments of the Division Bench of the High  Court of  Allahabad dated, January 22, 1991 and May 13, 1992  made in  C.M.W.P. No.4177/85 and C.M.W.P. No.7146/88.  The  lands bearing  plot  No.325 situated in village Chiloli  in  Dist. Farrukhabad,  of  a total extent of 5.13 acres out  of  8.21 woes  was  notified and published in the  State  Gazette  on February 19, 1982 for acquisition to establish Model  Market Yeard  of  Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,  Kaimganj  in  Dist. Farrukhabad.  The declaration under s.6(1) was published  in the  Gazette on February 7, 1985, in the newspapers on  June 4,  1987  and  the  substance  in  the  locality  subsequent thereto.   The  respondents who owned about 1 acre  and  odd land have challenged the validity of the declaration on  the ground  that  it  was published after the  expiry  of  three years.    Therefore,  the  notification  under  s.4(1)   and declaration under s.6(1) should be deemed to be void.   That contention  ,was  found favour with the High  Court  and  it allowed  the writ petitions.  Thus these appeals by  special leave. 3.   The only question is whether the High   Court was right in its conclusion that the,   declaration   under  s.6   was published  after  3 years and the last of  the  publications shall  be the last date for the purpose of  computing  three years  period envisaged in clause (i)of the proviso to  sub- s.(1)  of s.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for  short, ’the Act’) as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of  1984.   Section  6(1) postulates  that  subject  to  the provisions  of  part VII of the Act,  when  the  appropriate Government  was satisfied, after considering the report,  if any, made under s.5-A(2) that any particular land is  needed for  a public purpose, or for a company a declaration  shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such  Government  or  of some  officer  duly  authorized  to certify  its  order  that  any  land  covered  by  the  same notification  under  s.4(1),  irrespective  of  whether  one report or different reports has or have been made  (wherever required)  under  s.5-A(2).  The proviso  itself  places  an embargo  and limitation on the exercise of the  power  under s.6(1)  and  publication of the declaration in  the  gazette with  the language thus- : " provided that any land  covered by notification 4(1) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) and Validation Ordinance,  1967 (1  of  1967),  but  before the  commencement  of  the  Land Acquisition  (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made  after  the expiry of three yews from the date of the publication of the notification  under  s.4(1). Sub-s.(2) provides  that  every declaration  shall be published in official Gazette, in  two daily  newspapers  in  the locality in  which  the  land  is situated  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  land  is situated,   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.   Sub- s.(3) makes such declaration as conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case  may  be,  and,  after  making  such  declaration,  the appropriate  government may acquire the land in  the  manner hereinafter 490 appearing. (emphasis supplied) 4.   The question, therefore, is that which  date   of   the publications in three steps   i.e.   publication   in    the Gazette,  two  news papers and local publication to  be  the last   date  for  the  purpose  of  computing  three   years limitation prescribed in Clause (i) of the proviso to s.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.  But on deeper probe, it  does not  appear  to be so and such a construction  would  easily defeat  the  public  purpose  and  deflects  the  course  of justice.   So it is necessary to understand the  scheme  and policy  of the Act to get the crux of the question.   It  is seen that Sub-s.(1) of s.4 gives power of eminent domain  to the  State  to acquire the land, whenever it appears  to  it that  the  land  is needed or likely to be  needed  for  any public  purpose  or  for  any  company,  by  a  notification published  in the official gazette and two daily  newspapers circulating in that area and at least one of them should  be in the regional language and also the Collector is  enjoined to  cause public notice of the substance of notification  to be given at convenient places in the said locality in  which the land is situated.  It is also mentioned thereunder  that the  last  date of such publication and the giving  of  such public  notice "being hereinafter referred to " as the  date of  publication of the notification.  It would be seen  that the purpose of notification under s.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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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 s.  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 s. 11-A.  Lest the entire acquisition  shall stand lapsed.  The word ’hereinafter’  is for  such purposes as well as for the purpose of  determina- tion  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. 5.   Clause  (i)  of  the proviso  to  s.6(1)  mandates  the publication  of the declaration in the official gazette  and it  should  be  within  three years from  the  date  of  the publication  of the notification under s.4(1) i.e. the  last of  the  dates  referred to in s.4(1).  The  word  ’publish’ emphasises  the  act  accomplished  i.e.  declaration  under s.6(1)  being published in the official Gazette.   The  last date  under  s.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) of proviso to s.6(1) of the Act as it was already done, but purposes to be followed  hereinafter.  Otherwise language would  have  been "hereinbefore  done".  Sub-s.(2) as such did  not  prescribe any limitation within which the declaration under s.6(1)  or other  steps  hereinafter to be taken, in other  words,  the steps to be taken thereafter in making the award under s. 11 or  in computation of the period prescribed in s. 11A.   The publication  of  the  declaration in  two  daily  newspapers having  circulation  in  the locality one of  which  in  the regional language and the publication of the substance 491 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  s.6(1)  and also to provide limitation  to  make  the award  under  s. 11 by the Collector.  In other  words,  the limitation  prescribed  under s. 11A is for the  purpose  of making  the award and if the Collector fails to do  so,  the entire  proceeds under s.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 subs.(1) of  s.6 is  complete,  as soon as the declaration under  s.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 dates of the publication of the notification under  s.4(1).  The procedural ministerial  acts  prescribed under sub-s.(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 s.6(1)  of  the  Act.  We cannot agree with  Sri  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, Sri Padhaya, 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

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

skillful   manner  or  management  with  the   lower   level officials.  The High Court, therefore, was not right in  its conclusion  that  since  declaration was  published  in  the newspapers on June4, 1987, after the expiry of three  years, the  declaration  under s.6(1) and  the  notification  under s.4(1)  stood lapsed.  It is clearly illegal.   The  further contention  of the learned counsel for the  respondent  that other  contention  raised in the writ petitions need  to  be dealt  with  and so the cases need to be  remanded;  has  no force  for the reason that though they were pleaded but  the parties have chosen to argue only the above contention.   So it  is not a fit case for remand.  The writ petitions  would stand dismissed.  The appeals are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without Costs. 492