Holding

The proviso to Section 6(1) imposes a time limit only for making the declaration, not for publishing it under Section 6(2); therefore the declaration made within one year is valid.

Summary

The State of Karnataka issued a Section 4(1) notification on 28‑11‑1987 (published 23‑2‑1988) indicating its intention to acquire land for housing. A declaration under Section 6(1) was made on 22‑2‑1989, within one year of the Section 4 publication, and was later published in the Official Gazette on 9‑3‑1989. The petitioner, S.H. Rangappa, challenged the validity of the Section 6(2) publication, arguing that it must also be made within one year of the Section 4 notification. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 6(1) only limits the time for making the declaration, not for publishing it under Section 6(2). Consequently, the declaration was valid and the appeal was dismissed. The Court relied on the interpretation that “publish” in the proviso refers to the Section 4 notification and noted that no statutory time‑limit exists for the Gazette publication of the declaration.

Issues considered

Whether the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be published within one year of the publication of the Section 4 notification as prescribed by the proviso to Section 6(1).

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1), s. 5A, s. 6(1), s. 6(2)
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 6 declarationPublication time‑limitStatutory interpretationPublic purposeKarnataka

Judgment

S.H. RANGAPPA A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

OCTOBER 3, 2001

[B.N. KIRPAL, N. $ANTOSH HEGDE AND P. VENKATARAMA B
REDDI, JJ.]

Land Acquisition :

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4( 1) and 6( 1) proviso-Acquisition C
of land-For public purpose-Declaration-Issuance of-Limitation-Period
of-Held: Declaration under S. 6( I) has to be made within one year of the
publication of S. 4 not~fication-However, no time limit is prescribed under S~
6(2) within which s. 6(1) declaration is to be published.

Words and Phrases : D

"Publish" and "from the date of publication of the not(fication"-

- Meaning of-Jn the context of S. 6( 1) proviso (ii) of the land Acquisition Act,
1894.

The respondent-State issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the E
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 28-11-1987 wherein it was stated that the
lands indicated in the Schedule thereto were intended to be acquired for
the public purpose of construction of houses by the Housing Board. The
notification was published in the newspaper on 23.2.1988. A declaration
under Section 6(1) of the Act was made on 22.2.1989. F
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the
validity of the notification under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that
this notification. was barred by Ume. The High C~urt dismissed the writ
petition. Hence this appeal.
G
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the declaration~
which was issued under Section 6 of the Act, had to be published within
one year of the publication of Section 4 notification.

The following question arose before this Court : H
545
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Whether the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition
. Act; 1894 should be published within the period prescribed .by the proviso
to Section 6(1) of the said Act?

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

B HELD : 1. The words "publish" and "from the date of publication of
the notification" occurring in proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 refer to the publication of the Section 4 notification
and have no reference to the publication: of any notification under Section
6. Under Section 6(1); it is only a declaration, which is required to be. made,
the time limit being within one year of the publication of Section 4
c notification. [550-B]

2. Section 6(2) of the Act does not prescribe any time limit within
which the declaration made under Section 6(1) is to be published. The
purpose of Section 6 notification being to give a final declaration with
D regard to the need of the land for public purpose, the interest of the hmd
owners was sufficiently safeguarded with the requirement of the making of
the declaration under Se"ction 6(1) within a prescribed period. It is difficult
to read into Section 6(2) the provisions of the proviso to Section 6(1), which
relate t~ the time Umit for issuance of the notification under Section 6(1).
[550-D-E; G-H] .
E
'Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P., (1976] 1 SCC 843, followed.
' . . ' -
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1962] Supp. 3 ,SCR 713, Krishi
Utpadan Ma.ndi Samiti v. Makrand Singh, (1995] 2 SCC 497 and Eugenia
Misquita v. State of Gqa, (1997]8 SCC 47, held inapplicabfo.
F
Senjeeva Nagar Medical and Health Employees Co-operative Housing
Society v. Mohd. Abdu[Bawanab, (1996] 3 SCC 600, held obiter.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7077 of2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .9.97 of the Karnataka High Court
G
in W.A. No. 8730 of 1996.

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 7078 of 2001. ·

H G.L. Sanghi, R.S. Hegde, Sorniran Sharma, Prasha,nt Jain; P.P. Singh,
S.H. RANGAPPA v. STATE [KIRPAL, J.] 547
Shantha Kumar Mahale, R.C. Kohli, P.V. Mahale, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Girish A
Kumar, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Satya Mitra, Sanjay R. Hegde, Ms. Kiran Suri,
N. Ganpathy and P.R. Ramasesh for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KIRPAL,J. B
C.A. No. 7077 .of 2001 @ SLP (C) No. 22637 of 1997.

Leave granted.

Whether the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, C
1894 (hereim~fter referred to as "the Act") should be published within the
period prescribed by the proviso to Section 6(1) of the said Act, is the only
question which arises for consideration in this case.

The notification dated 29th November, 1987 was issued and published
in the Official Gazette on 28thJanuary, 1988. The same was published in the D
.newspaper on 23rd February, 1988. This notification was issued under Section
4(1) of the Act wherein it was stated that the lands indicated in the Schedule
thereto were intended to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of
houses by the Karnataka Housing Board. Persons interested were informed that
they could file objections to the proposed acquisition. This notification was
E
published in the newspaper on.~3rd February, 1988 whereafter objections were
filed under Section 5A of the Act. On 22nd February, 1989 a declaration was
made signed by the competent authority µnder Section 6(1) of the Act. It was
. stated therein that after verification of the Report of the Housing Commissioner
and taking into consideration objections under Section 5A, it was declared that
the lands specified in the Schedule thereto were acquired for the public purpose F
for constiuction of different categories of houses by Karnataka. Housing Board.
This declaration· which was dated 22nd February, 1989 was published in the
Official Gazette on 9th March, 1989.

The appellant herein challenged the validity of the notification under
Section 6 primarily on the ground that this notification was barred by time. It G
was contended by the learned counsel that the notification under Section 6(1)
had to be issued within one year of the publicatio~ of St".ction 4 notification
and this not having been done the said notification w1.1s liabl.e to be quashed.
The Single Judge of the High Court did not accept this· argument. It was
observed that the declaration was made within one year under Section 6( 1) on H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A 22nd february, 1989. The said Section 6 did not provide for any period of
limitation within which the declaration had to be published and, therefore, -
once the declaration was made within the prescribed period, the notification
was valid. The writ appeal met with no success. Hence, this appeal by special
leave.

B It is contended by the learned ·senior counsel for the appellant that on a
correct interpretation of Section 6, the declaration which was issued has to be
published within one year of the publication of Section 4 notification.

Section 6 reads as follows·:
c "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose - (1) Subject
to the provisions 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

D
for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made
to that effect under the sign11:ture of aSecretary to such Government
or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders, 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
E 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) -

F (i)published 'after the commencement of the Land Acquisition Act
(Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1of1967), 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
G (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 n~tification;]

. Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the
H compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a
S.H. RANGAPPA v. STATE [KIRPAL, J.] 549
Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund A
controlled or managed by a local a~thority.

[Explanation : l - 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-
B
section (l), is stayed by an order of a Court shall 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.] c
(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
D
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 E
made of the land, the place were such plan may be inspected.

(3) The said declaration shall be 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 p
acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing."

Declaration under Section 6 is preceded by issuance of a notification
under Section 4 which indicates the intention of the Government to inter alia
acquire land for a public purpose. Pursuant to the issuance of the same,
objections can be filed and after hearing the same, Section 6(1) enables the G
appropriate authority if it is satisfied, after considering the report made under
Section 5A of the Act, that if any particular land Is needed for a public purpose,
then a declaration is to be made under the signature of an appropriate officer.
Where notification under Section 4 is published after the commencement of the
Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, as in the present case, proviso (ii) H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.·
A requires that such a declaration shall not be made after the expiry of one year
from the date of the publication of Section 4 notification.

We wish to clarify that the words "publish" and "from the date of
publication of the notification'' occuring in proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) refer to
the publication of the Section 4 notification and have no reference to the
B publication of any notification under Section 6. Under Section 6(1), it is only
a declaration which is required to be made, the time limit being within one year
of the publication of the Section 4 notification. The. main purpose for the
issuance of a declaration under Section 6 is provided by sub-section (3),
namely, that ihe dedaration is conclusive evidence that the land is needed.inter
c alia for a public purpose and after the making of the declaration the appropriate,
Government may acquire the land in the manner provided by the Act. -Sub-
section (2) requires the declaration to be published in the Official Gazette and
in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate
and in addition thereto the Collector is also required to cause public notice of
the substance of the declaration to be given in the convenient places in the said
D locality.

0
It is pertinent to note that sub-section (2) .of Section 6 does not prescribe
any time limit within which the declaration made under Section 6(1) is to be
published. It is well known that after an order or declaration is made there can
be a time gap between the making of the order or a declaration and its
E publication in the Official Gazette. Whereas the time limit for the making of
an order is provided under Section 6(1), the legislature advisedly did not
provide for any time limit in respect of the steps required to be taken under sub-
section (2) of Section 6. If the contention of Mr. GL. Sanghi, the learried senior
counsel for the appellant is correct, the effect would be that not only the
F declaration· would have to. be published within the. time prescribed under the
proviso to Section 6(1) but all other steps, like publication in the daily newspaper
and the Collector causing public notice of the qeclaration to be given at a
convenient places in the locality, must also be completed within a period of one
year of Section 4 notification. This could certainly ·not be a consequence
contemplated by the legislature. As already observed, the purpose of Secticm
6 notification being to give a final declaration with regard to the need of the
land for public purpose, the interest of the _land owners was sufficiently ·
safeguarded with th~ requirement of the making of the declaration· under
Section 6(1) within a prrescribed period. It is difficult for us to read into sub-
section (2) the provisions of the proviso to Section 6(1) which relate to the time
H limit for issuance of the notification under Section 6(1).
S.H. RANGAPPA v. STATE [KIRPAL, J.] 551
This view which we have expressed hereinabove finds support from a A
decision of a Bench of four Judges of this Court in the case of Khadim Hussain
v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1976] 1 SCC 843. The question which arose in that
case related to the time· within which the declaration made under Section 6(1)
bad to be published in the Gazette. Repelling the contention that there was any
·time prescribed for publication of the declaration this Court held. as follows :
B
"2S:"It is clear from the provisions set out above that the object of the
notification under Section. 6 is to ensure that the Government is duly
satisfied, after an· enquiry at which parties concerned are heard, that the
land under consideration is really needed for a public purpose and that
the declaration is to operate as conclusive evidence to show' that this C
is so. The conclusiveness of this declaration cannot be questioned
anywhere if the procedure dealing with its making has been observed.
The notification which takes place under Section 6(2), set out above,
follows and serves only as evidence of the declaration. That the
·declaration is shown by ·the fact that it has to be signed by a Secretary
or other officer duly authorised. The declaration is in the f<?rm of an . D
order. T~e notification is its publication and proof of its existence. It
has been shown, in the case before us, that the deemed notification
under Section 6 took place about three and a half months after the
expiry of two years from the commencement of the ordinance of 1967.
B.ut, it is not argued on behalf of the appellant that the declaration E
under Section 6 was similarly delayed. Presumably, it wa:s within time.

26. A look at the amendment introduced by the Section 4(2) of the
Land Acquisitiop (Amendment; and Validation) Act, 1967, shows that
it is declaration which has to take place within two years of the expiry
.of the commencement of the ordinance which came into force on F
January 20, 1967. In fact, Section 4(2) of the Amendment Act of 1967,
set out above, itself makes a distinction between a "deeJaration" under
Section 6 and its "notification" under Section 4 of the principal Act.
It does not say that no notific~tion under Section 6 of the principal Act ·
can take place beyond the time fixed. The prohibition is confined to. . G
declarations made beyond the specified period. If the case of the
·appellant could be that no declaration was made within the prescribed
time, it was his duty to prove it. He has not discharged that onus.

27. As indicated by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court,
the amendment of 1967, was the result ofa decision of this Court in H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma holding successive,
notifications, under Section 6, with excessive intervening delay between '
a notification under Section 4(2) and a declaration under Section 6,
· keeping the owner or other person entitled to compensation in suspense
between· a declaration and its notification is shown to exist, it may raise
a suspiCion about the existence of the declaration itself or about the
B
bonafides of acquisition proceedfogs. This h9wever, is not the position
in the ·case before us. Neither the existence nor the bonafides of the
declaration have been questioned. It has not been either asserted or
shown, as already mentioned, that no declaration was made within the
period of time fixed for it. We, therefore, reject the last objection also."
c
While referring to the decisions of tl1is Court in Bachhittar Singh v. The
State of Punjab, [1962] Suppl. 3 SCR 713 as well as.Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti & Anr. v. Makrand Singh & Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 497 and Eugenia
Misquita & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors., [1997] 8 SCC 47, Mr. Sanghi, learned
senior counsel contended that the observations of this Court ill Khadim Hussain's
D
case require reconsideration. With respect, we are unable to agree with this for
more than one reason. Firstly, t.he decision in Khadim Hussain s case was
rendered by four Judges and the said decision is binding on us, apart from the
fact that on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 6 we are in agreement
with the views expressed by the Bench in that case. Secondly, as far as
E Bachhittar Singh l' case is concerned that related to notings on the file made
by a Minister and the question which arose was whether that was on order
which could have been regarded to have been passed. By referring to the
provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of Indi~, this Court held that the
said decision would not be regarded as an order of the Government. In Krishi
F s
Utpadan case and Eugenia's case there was no reference made to the binding
decision of this Court in Khadim Hussain s case. Everi otherwise, in both these
cases, declaration under Section 6 had been published within one year of the
notification under Section 4 and the question in the form in which it has arisen
for consideration in the instant case did not arise there.

G Mr. Sanghi also drew our attention to the observations of this Court in
. Senjeeva Nagar Medical and Health Employees Co-operative Housing Society
v. Mohd. Abdul Bawahab, [1996] 3 SCC 600. While referring to.the various
provisions of the Act at page 606, it was observed that "the declaration should
be within one year." Mr. Sangtii contends that this is a decison of three Judges
H which we should foliow. We are unable to accept thi.s for the reason that what ·
S.H. RANGAPPA v. STATE [KIRPAL, J.] 553
arose for consideration before the Court in Senjeeva Nagar's case was the A
provision of Section 4 as amended by the State of A.P. which fixed time limit
of 40 days for giving public notice on the substance of a notification under
Section 4(1). The Court was called upon in that case to consider whether a
declaration under Section 6(1) was required to be published in a Gazette within
one year of the publication of Section 4 Notification. Therefore, the aforesaid
B
observation is only an obiter and contrary to the decision of this Court of a
larger Bench in Khadim Hussain~· case which decision has neither been referred
to in the Senjeeva Nagar's case or in the Krishi Utpadhan Mandi's case and
in Eugenia's case.

Following the decision of this Court in Khadim Hussain's case with C
which we agree, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

C.A. No. 7078/2001 @ SLP (C) No. 3455 of 1999.

Leave granted.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal is also dismissed.
D

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.