Holding

A declaration under s.6(1) must be made within one year of the last publication of the notification under s.4; the later publication of that declaration under s.6(2) is a ministerial act and does not affect the limitation period.

Summary

The appellant's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under s.4 was last published on 30‑Jan‑1986 and a declaration under s.6 was made on 29‑Jan‑1987, with its first newspaper publication on 30‑Jan‑1987 and later publication in the Official Gazette on 19‑Mar‑1987. The appellant contended that the declaration was not published within one year of the notification, rendering the acquisition void. The Supreme Court held that the one‑year limitation in s.6(1) relates to the *making* of the declaration, not its subsequent publication under s.6(2), which is a ministerial act without a time limit. Consequently, the declaration was timely, and the acquisition proceedings were valid. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The period of one year for making a declaration under s.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – from which date is it computed?
Whether the date of publication of the declaration under s.6(2) is relevant to the one‑year limitation.
Whether a declaration under s.6 is complete only upon its publication in the Official Gazette.
The correct interpretation of the proviso to s.6(1) in view of the Eugenio Misquita decision.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11-A, s. 4, s. 6(1), s. 6(2)
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 4 notificationSection 6 declarationLimitation periodOfficial GazetteMinisterial actInterpretation of statutes

Judgment

SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD A
v.
STA TE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 19, 2001

[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894_:.Ss. 4, 6( 1), 6(2) and 11-A-Land acquisi-
tion proceedings-Declaration under s.6-Period of limitation-Computation
of-"Declaration" and "publication"-Distinction between-Held, a "decla-
ration" under s.6( 1) must be made within one year from the last publication C
of Notification under s.4-No time limit fixed for "publication" of declaration
under s.6(2) as it is merely a ministerial or procedural act-Last date under
s. 6(2) is only for purposes of computing limitation under s.11 -A.

Certain lands belonging to appellant were acquired under the Land
D
Acquisition Act, 1894. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
published in the Government Gazette on 21.1.1986. The last publication
of the said Notification took place on 30.1.1986. Thereafter a declaration
under Section 6 was issued on 29.1.1987 and was published in the local
newspaper on 30.1.1987. However, the declaration was published in the
Official Gazette on 19.3.1987 and in the village concerned on 24.4.1987. E
After issuing notice to appellant nndcr Section 9, a final award was
passed. Appellant filed a writ petition contending that the 'eclaration
under Section 6 of the Act had not been published within a period of one
year from the last date of publication of Notification under Section 4 and
thus the acquisition proceedings are vitiated and should be set aside. F
Rejecting the said contention, High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD : 1.1. The declaration made under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was within a period of one year from the last date of
publication of Notification under Section 4. The High Conrt was thus
justified in holding that the acquisition proceedings were not vitiated.
Section 6(1) of the Act provides that "declaration must be made" within
H
255
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A one year from the date of "last publication of notification" under Section 4.
Thereafter, for publication of said declaration under Section 6(2) no time
limit has been laid down and it may take place at a later date as it is merely
a ministerial act. In the instant case, the last publication of notification
under Section 4 was on 30.1.1986. A declaration under Section 6 was
B admittedly made on 29.1.1987 which was within a period of one year.
[260-D; 264-B; 262-F]

1.2. The wordings of Sections 4, 6 and 11-A leave no room for doubt
that the Land Acquisition Act made a distinction between a "declaration"
and ''publication". Under Section 4 the notification has to be published.
c Again under Section 11-A the period of two years has to be commuted
from the date of "publication of the declaration". As distinct from this
under the first proviso to Section 6(1) "declaration" cannot be made after
the expiry of one year from the date of "publication of the notification
under Section 4". The words "published" in clauses (i) and (ii) of the first
D proviso to Section 6(1) refer to the publication of notification under Sec-
tion 4. The proviso lays down that "no declaration (under Section 6) shall
'be made after expiry of three years [under clause (i)] where the notifica-
tion under Section 4 is published before the commencement of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and after expiry of one year [under clause (ii)] where
E notification under Section 4 was published after commencement of Land
Acqnisition Act, 1894. Thus the proviso clearly talks of "publication in
respect of notification under Section 4 and then provide a time for "mak-
ing of declaration" under Section 6. The legislature is purposely omitting
to use the words "publication of declaration" in the proviso to Section 6.
F The last date under Section 6(2) is only for the purpose of computing
limitation under Section 11-A. (262-B-E; 264-A]

1.3. In the case of Eugenio Misquita this Court has not held that a
declaration under Section 6 is not complete until it is published in the
G Official Gazette. This question has been left open. Thus, the contention of
the appellant that declaration under Section 6 is complete only when it is
published in the Official Gazette within one year of Notification cannot be
accepted. (261-E; G]

Eugenio Masquita v. State of Goa, [1997] 8 SCC 47, explained.
H
SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD v. STATE [VARIAVA, J.] 257
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7889 of 2001. A

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.2001 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 779 of 1989.

Uday Umesh Lalit, for the Appellant.
B
Sanjay V. Kharde and Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
c
Heard parties. '
This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 24th August, 2001 by which the
Writ Petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed.

Briefly stated the facts are as follows: D

The 3rd Respondent required certain lands in Aurangabad city. Thus land
acquisition proceedings were started. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 21st
January, 1986. It had earlier been published in local newspapers on 3rd No- E
vember, 1985 and 6th November, 1985. ·The local publication in the village
took place on 30th January, 1986. The declaration under Section 6 was issued
on 29th January, 1987. This declaration was published in the local newspaper
on 30th January, 1987. It was then published in the Official Gazette on 19th
March, 1987 and in the concerned locality on 24th April, 1987. At this stage
F
it must be mentioned that notice under Section 9 was received by the Appellant
on 13th March, 1989. O~ 14th March, 1989 the Appellant filed his reply
opposing the acquisition. Respondent No. 2 passed the final award on 21st
April, 1989.

On 16th March, 1989 the Appellant filed this Petition in the High Court G
of Bombay at Aurangabad. On 20th March, 1989 he qbtained an ad-interim
stay preventing the Government from taking possession. However, this Writ
Petition ultimately came to be dismissed by the impugned Order.

Before us only one point has been urged. It has been submitted that the
H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had not been pub-
lished within a period of one year from the last date of publication of the
Notification under Section 4. It is submitted that for this reason the acquisition
proceedings are vitiated and should be set aside.

At this stage it would.be appropriate to set out Sections 4(1), 6 and !I-
B
A of the Land Acquisition Act. These Sections read as follows:

"4. Publican'on qf preliminary notification and powers of officers
thereupon. - (I) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government
that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any
c 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
D locality [the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of
such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of pub-
lication of the notification].

E 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. - (I) 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 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed
for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made
F to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government
or of some officer duly authorised 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 {I), irrespective of whether one report or different reports
has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5-A, sub-
G section (2):

Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular lam!
covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (I),-

H (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition
SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD "·STATE [VARIAVA, J.] 259
(Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the A
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) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one B
year from the date ~f the publication ~f 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 a
company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund
controlled or managed by a local authority.
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 date of such publication and the giving of such public
notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of 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 E
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.

(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 F
may acquire the land in a manner hereinafter appearing.

I I 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 period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land G
shall lapse:

Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been
published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amend-
ment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A from such commencement."
(emphasis supplied)

Thus under Section 4 a notification has to be published in the manner laid down
therein. As against this, under Section 6 a declaration has to be first made and
that declaration is then to be published in the manner provided in Section 6(2)
B of the Land Acquisition Act. Also the first proviso to Section 6(1) lays down
a time limit within which declaration has to be made. Very significantly it does
not lay down a time limit within which publication of the declaration is to be
made. Significantly the first proviso does not lay down that publication cannot
take place after the period prescribed therein. A; the first proviso to Section
c 6(1) only provides a time limit for a declaration and not for publication, it has
been incorporated in section (I) of Section 6. It is for this reason that tl.e
legislature has not put this proviso after sub-section (2) of Section 6.

It is admitted that the last publication of the notification under Section
D 4 was on 30th January, 1986. The declaration under Section 6 was admittedly
made on 29th January, 1987. If this date is taken into consideration then the
declarafon is within a period of one year from the last date of publication
of the notification under Section 4. However, it is submiued that under Section
6(2) every declaration has to be published in the Official Gazette, in two daily
newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated and also at
E
convenient places in the locality. It is submitted that a declaration under Section
6 becomes effective only after it has been published. It is submitted that,
therefore, the date of declaration necessarily has to be the date when it was
published in the Official Gazette and in the manner provided in Section 6(2).
It is submitted that as the declaration was published in the Official Gazette on
F 19th March, 1987 and in the village on 24th April, 1987 the declaration has
been made after the expiry of one year from the last date of publication of the
notification under Section 4.

In support of this submission reliance was placed upon the case of
G Eugenio Misquita v. State of Goa, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 47. In this case
it was inter alia held as follows:

"7. It is now well settled that the last of the dates in the series of the
publications made under Section 4( I) of the Act is the relevant date
to reckon the starting point of limitation for the purpose of proviso
H
SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD v. STATE [VARIAVA, J.] 261
to Section 6(l)(ii). Now, the question is which is the relevant date to A
reckon the last date for the purpose of clause (ii) of the first proviso
to Section 6( 1). 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 clause (ii) of the first B
proviso to Section 6( 1).

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx
c
17. 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 D
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 Samity case [1995] 2 SCC 497 mere making of
declaration is not enough. The making of declaration under Section
6 is complete for the purpose of clauses (i) and (ii) oi the first proviso
E
to Section 6(1) when it is published in the Official Gazette."

Relying heavily on the above observations it has been submitted that this
Court has already held that the relevant date for reckoning of limitation is not
the date of making of the declaration under Section 6. It is submitted that this
Court has held that a declaration under Section 6 is complete only when it is F
published in the Official Gazette.

At first blush it does appear that the above observations support the
Appellant. If that were so then this question would have had to be referred
to a larger bench as such a finding would be against the clear wording of
G
Section 6 which admits of no ambiguity.

However, in our view, in Eugenio Misquita 's case (supra) this Court is
not holding that a declaration under Section 6 is not within time provided it
is published at a later date. This question has been left open. This is clear from
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A the observations in para 17 which read as follows:

"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."
B
The words "may not be correct" clearly show that the question is left open.

In our view the wordings of Sections 4, 6 & 11-A leave no room for
doubt that the Land Acquisition Act made a distinction between a "declaration"
C and "publication". To be noted that under Section 4 the notification has to be
published. Again under Section II-A the period of two years has to be com-
muted from the date of "publication of the declaration". As distinct from this
under the first proviso to Section 6(1) a "declaration" cannot be made after the
expiry of one year from the date of "publication of the notification under
Section 4". The words '·published" in ciauses (i) and (ii) of the first proviso
D to Section 6(1) refer to the publication of notification under Section 4. A plain
reading of Section 6 shows that a distinction is made between a "declaration"
and a "publication". Viewed from this angle the wordings of the first proviso
to Section 6(1) become important. The proviso fays down that "no declaration
(under Section 6) shall be made after expiry of three years [under clause (i)]
E where the notification under Section 4 is published before the commencement
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and after expiry of one year [under clause
(ii)] where notification under Section 4 was published after commencement of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus the proviso clearly talks of"Publication" in
respect of notification under Section 4 and then provide
F a time for "making of declaration" under Section 6. The legislature is
purposely omitting to use the words "Publication of declaration" in the proviso
to Section 6.

In our view, it is clear that the ''declaration must be rnade" within one
year from the date of "last publication of the Notification" under Section 4.
G Thereafter the publication under Section 6(2) may take place at a later date
as it is merely a ministerial act.

Even if Eugenio Misquiua 's case was laying down what is canvassed
by counsel the Appellant cannot succeed. To be noted that the paras 8 and 9
H
SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHA TOD v. STATE [VARIAVA, J.] 263

of that Judgment read as follows: A

"8. According to the learned counsel, the limitation prescribed under
clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 6( I) has to be considered with
reference 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
B
Act holding that the last of the dates of suclr' publication in the series
is the relevant date for computing the period oflimitation under clause
(ii) of the first proviso to Section 6(1 ).

9. Let us examine whether the learned counsel is right in his submis- C
sion. 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 D
"published" for the reasons stated in those decisions. Therefore, strictly
speaking, but for those judicial decisions the date of making of the
declaration under Section 6( l) will be the relevant date for reckoning
the period of limitation. However, in the interest of the general public,
the courts have taken the view that the declaration made will stand
E
accomplished only when it is published. This publication has, there-
fore, 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 I I -A of the Act. This construction
is supported by the language employed in Section 6(2) of the Act. Jn
particular, the word "hereinafter" used in Section 6(2) will amply
F
... 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 I I -A. The language employed in second

. proviso to Section 6(1) also supports this construction. Therefore, the
contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted." (emphasis sup- G
plied)

Thus a contention similar to the one made here had been rejected.
Learned Judges then observed in para 16 as follows:
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A "16 ..... that for the purpose of calculating the limitation prescribed
under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 6(1), it is not the
last of the publications in the series that should be taken into account,
but the publication that was made in the first instance under the
Section."
B
Thus a detailed reading of the authority makes it clear that the last date
under Section 6(2) is only for purposes of computing limitation under Section
11-A. Publications under Section 6(2) arc ministerial acts and procedural in "
nature. In any case, in this case the date of first publication of declaration is
30th January, 1987. This is also within one year of last date of notification
C under Section 4. The High Court was thus right in holding that the proceedings
were not vitiated.

We, therefore, see no substance in the appeal. We see no infirmity in the
impugned Judgment. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. There will be
no order as to costs.
D
S.V.K. Appeal dismissed.

....