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

PETITIONER: OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.WITHCONTEMPT PETITION NO.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/08/1995

BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2398            1995 SCC  (5) 206  JT 1995 (7)   481        1995 SCALE  (4)589

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                     J U D G M E N T Mrs.Sujata V.Manohar,J.      Leave granted.      The appeal  pertains to  land admeasuring  1 ground and 1602 sq.ft.  in  T.S.  No.3/1/part,  Block  No.31,  Mambalam Village,  Madras  owned  by  the  appellant  society.  By  a Notification  dated  24.8.1982  issued  by  the  respondent- Government under  Section 4(1)  of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a  portion of  the said  land was notified as required for a road and water drainage arrangements. The Notification was  published   in  Tamil   Nadu  Gazette  dated  8.9.1982. Thereafter the  respondent-Government issued  a  declaration dated 19.12.1983 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the  said land for the public purpose of providing a road,  drainage and water facilities. The Notification was published in  Tamil Nadu  Gazette dated  15th  of  February, 1984. On  13.8.1984, the  appellant  was  also  served  with notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant  thereto,  the  appellant  submitted  a  claim  for compensation. No  award, however,  was made  thereafter till April 1987.      In April  1987, the  appellant filed  a  writ  petition before the  High Court of Madras being Writ Petition No.4836 of 1987  challenging the  said acquisition  proceedings.  On 12th of  May, 1987,  the appellant obtained an interim order from the  High Court of Madras restraining respondents 1 and 2 from dispossessing the appellant.      The contention  of  the  appellant  in  the  said  writ petition to  the effect  that the  provisions of  Rule  3(b) framed by  the Government  of Tamil Nadu under Section 55(1) of the said Act, which are mandatory in nature, had not been complied with in their case, has been upheld by the Division Bench of  the Madras  High Court  in the  impugned  judgment dated 28.4.1994. The Division Bench has set aside the entire acquisition proceedings  after the  stage  of  Section  4(1)

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

Notification and  has allowed  the writ petition accordingly in part.  The Division  Bench has,  however,  directed  that there shall  be a fresh enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act  in accordance  with  law.  It  has  further directed that  the enquiry  shall be  completed and  if  the Government decides  to  proceed  with  the  acquisition  the declaration shall  be issued under Section 6 of the said Act within six  months from  the date  of the  judgment and  the award shall  be passed  within four months thereafter. These latter directions dealing with a fresh enquiry under Section 5A and  subsequent steps  directed to  be taken  by the High Court are  the subject  matter of  challenge in  this appeal which is  preferred by  the appellant.  The findings  of the Division Bench  of  the  Madras  High  Court  setting  aside acquisition proceedings  after the  stage  of  Section  4(1) Notification have  not been  challenged  before  us  by  the respondents.      It is  urged  before  us  by  the  appellant  that  the subsequent directions  which have  been given  by  the  High Court are in clear conflict with the proviso to Section 6 of the Land  Acquisition Act,  1894.  The  appellant  had  also preferred a  revision petition  before the Madras High Court on the  basis of  the proviso  to  Section  6  of  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894. The  revision petition, however, was dismissed. Whereupon  the appellant  has  come  before  this Court.      The relevant  provisions  of  Section  6  of  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894 after its amendment by Act 64 of 1984 are as follows:      "6(1)    :...................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,................a      declaration  shall   be  made   to  that      effect..................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 (1), irrespective of whether one      report or  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  of  the  Land  Acquisition      (Amendment) Act,  1984,  shall  be  made      after the expiry of three years from the      date   of   the   publication   of   the      notification; or           (ii)...............................           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

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

    stayed by  an order  of a Court shall be      excluded." The amended  provisions came  into effect from 24.9.1984 and were in force on the date of the impugned judgment.      In the present case the Notification under Section 4(1) was  published   before  the   commencement  of   the   Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 but after the commencement of  the   Land  Acquisition   (Amendment   and   Validation) Ordinance, 1967. In view of the above proviso the delaration cannot be  made under  Section 6  in  respect  of  any  land covered by  the said  Notification after the expiry of three years  from   the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  said Notification. In  the present case Section 4(1) Notification was published  in the  Tamil Nadu  Government Gazette  dated 8.9.1982. Undoubtedly,  the Notification  under  Section  6, dated 19.12.1983  has been  made and  published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette  within the  period of  three years  prescribed under the  proviso.  This  declaration,  however,  has  been quashed in  the present proceedings. The question is whether a fresh  declaration under  Section 6 of the said Act can be made in  respect of  any land notified under Section 4(1) by the Notification  of 24.8.1982  after the  expiry  of  three years from the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4(1). The answer is clearly in the negative.      The respondents  have relied  upon Explanation 1 to the proviso which provides that in computing the period of three years the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuant  to the  Notification under  Section 4(1)  is stayed by  an order  of court shall be excluded. In the case of the  appellant such  a stay was obtained by them from the High Court  of Madras  on 20.4.1987. This was long after the expiry of  the period  of three  years  provided  under  the proviso to Section 6. Even if one excludes the period during which the  subsequent stay operated, the issuance of a fresh declaration under  Section 6  would be  clearly  beyond  the period of  three  years  prescribed  under  the  proviso  to Section  6.   Since  the   prohibition  on   issuance  of  a declaration under  Section 6 after the expiry of three years from the  date of  the publication of the Notification under Section 4(1)  is absolute,  the High  Court could  not  have given any  direction permitting  issuance of the declaration under Section  6 within  six months  from the  date  of  its judgment.      It is, however, urged by the respondents that we should also take into account the stay granted by the High Court of Madras on  7.10.1985 in respect of a writ petition which was filed by  an  adjoining  land  owner  whose  land  was  also notified under  the same  Notification dated 24.8.1982. Even this stay  is beyond the period of three years from the date of publication  of the  said Notification under Section 4(1) in the Tamil Nadu Gazette -- the date being 8.9.1982.      The respondents  further drew our attention to an order of stay  dated 27.10.1987  granted by the Minister for Local Administration  on   a  petition  which  was  filed  by  the adjoining land  owner before  the Government.  Such a  stay, however, cannot  be taken  into account  for the purposes of Explanation 1 since Explanation 1 requires that the order of stay should  be passed  by a  court. In  any event a stay in respect of proceedings pertaining to an adjacent land cannot be availed  of by  the respondents in calculating the period of three  years wihin  which the declaration under Section 6 is required to be made in respect of the appellant’s land.      In  the   premises,  the  appeal  is  allowed  and  the directions of the High Court regarding a fresh enquiry under Section  5A  and  a  declaration  under  Section  5A  and  a

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

declaration under  Section 6  to be issued within six months of the  impugned  judgment  if  the  Government  decides  to proceed with the acquisition, as also the direction that the award shall be passed within four months thereafter, are set aside. In  the circumstances  of the  case there  will be no order as to costs.      In view  of the  above findings nothing now survives in the contempt  petition No.262/94  taken out by the appellant in these  proceedings. There will, therefore, be no order on the contempt petition.