# Chandra Veer Singh & Ors v. Secretary Industrial Development & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 517
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-22
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 6543 of 2015
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-veer-singh-ors-v-secretary-industrial-development-ors-43150
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

(A)Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section
4(1), 6(1)-Declaration under 6(i)-period
of one year-counted-from date of last
mode of publication of notification under
section 4(1)-admittedly last date is
07.11.2013 when munadi made-notice
served
upon
village
Pradhan-duly
patched on Panchayat Bhawan as well as
on Vidyalay Bhawan-declaration under
6(1) on 30.10.14-held- well within timeno illegality found.
Held: Para-17
The next question which immediately
arises for consideration is staring point
of limitation of one year prescribed by
clause (ii) of proviso to Section 6.
Section 4(1) of the Act has already been
quoted above. It prescribes three modes
of publication of the intent of the
Government viz. (i) official gazette, (ii) two
daily newspapers having circulation in the
locality, one of which should be in regional
language;
(iii)
public
notice
of
the
substance of such notification at convenient
place in locality. By Amending Act No. 68 of
1984 it was provided that last of the dates
of the publication and public notice shall be
referred to as the date of publication of the
notification. Thus the Statute has itself
prescribed that out of the three prescribed
modes of publication the last of the dates of
such publication and the giving of public
notice shall be taken as the date of
publication of notification under Section
4(1) of the Act.
(B)Land Acquisition Act 1894, Section 5A-Acquisition-questioned-on
non
compliance of Section 5-A all petitioner
were present-objections properly dealtrecommendation
made
after
due
application of mind-held-full compliance
of Section 5.
Held: Para-34
In such view of the matter, the report on the
objections
along
with
recommendation
satisfies the test. All the petitioners were
present in person on the date of hearing. A
perusal of the report goes to show that
objections of the petitioners were properly
dealt with, heard and the report along with
the recommendation was made after due
application of mind. We are satisfied that the
report dated 10.12.2013 was made in full
compliance of mandatory directions of
Section 5-A of the Act. Thus the second
submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioners also does not merit consideration.
Case Law discussed:
2002 (1) SCC 689; (1997) 8 SCC 47; (2003) 9
SCCC 662; [2010 (8) ADJ 498 (DB)]; (1973) 2
SCC 337; (1980) 2 SCC 471; (2012) 1 SCC

## Text

_Characters 0–39,853 of 50,714. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39853 for what follows._

2 All] Chandra Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. Secretary Industrial Development & Ors.
517
petition is disposed of finally in above
terms.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.
Writ-C No. 6543 of 2015
Chandra Veer Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Secretary Industrial Development & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Tarun Agarwal, Ravi Kant
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.K. Dubey
(A)Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section
4(1), 6(1)-Declaration under 6(i)-period
of one year-counted-from date of last
mode of publication of notification under
section 4(1)-admittedly last date is
07.11.2013 when munadi made-notice
served
upon
village
Pradhan-duly
patched on Panchayat Bhawan as well as
on Vidyalay Bhawan-declaration under
6(1) on 30.10.14-held- well within timeno illegality found.
Held: Para-17
The next question which immediately
arises for consideration is staring point
of limitation of one year prescribed by
clause (ii) of proviso to Section 6.
Section 4(1) of the Act has already been
quoted above. It prescribes three modes
of publication of the intent of the
Government viz. (i) official gazette, (ii) two
daily newspapers having circulation in the
locality, one of which should be in regional
language;
(iii)
public
notice
of
the
substance of such notification at convenient
place in locality. By Amending Act No. 68 of
1984 it was provided that last of the dates
of the publication and public notice shall be
referred to as the date of publication of the
notification. Thus the Statute has itself
prescribed that out of the three prescribed
modes of publication the last of the dates of
such publication and the giving of public
notice shall be taken as the date of
publication of notification under Section
4(1) of the Act.
(B)Land Acquisition Act 1894, Section 5A-Acquisition-questioned-on
non
compliance of Section 5-A all petitioner
were present-objections properly dealtrecommendation
made
after
due
application of mind-held-full compliance
of Section 5.
Held: Para-34
In such view of the matter, the report on the
objections
along
with
recommendation
satisfies the test. All the petitioners were
present in person on the date of hearing. A
perusal of the report goes to show that
objections of the petitioners were properly
dealt with, heard and the report along with
the recommendation was made after due
application of mind. We are satisfied that the
report dated 10.12.2013 was made in full
compliance of mandatory directions of
Section 5-A of the Act. Thus the second
submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioners also does not merit consideration.
Case Law discussed:
2002 (1) SCC 689; (1997) 8 SCC 47; (2003) 9
SCCC 662; [2010 (8) ADJ 498 (DB)]; (1973) 2
SCC 337; (1980) 2 SCC 471; (2012) 1 SCC
792.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)
1. By means of this petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners have challenged the notification
dated 19-10-2013 issued under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short
the 'Act') as well as notification dated 30-102014 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. A
further writ of mandamus has also been
518
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claimed to restrain the respondents and its
agent from taking the actual possession of
the land in dispute covered by the said
notifications.
2.
We have heard Sri Ravi Kant,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Imran Saeed for the petitioner, learned
Advocate General assisted by Sri Ramesh
Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel
and Dr.Y.K.Srivastava, learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents.
3. Facts of the case, in short,
necessary for the purpose of the dispute
are as under :
4.
Petitioners claim to be the
'bhumidhar' of different parcel of land situate
in two villages namely; Uravar Hashtaraf &
Aslempur Nagla Kanhar, Tehsil & Pargana
Sikohabad, district Firozabad. A notification
under Section 4 of the Act was issued for
alleged public purpose namely; to construct
expressway from Lucknow to Agra in the
official gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh
dated 19-10-2013. By the said notification,
the land belonging to the petitioners situate in
above two mentioned villages were sought to
be acquired. The copy of the aforesaid
notification was also published in two Hindi
daily newspapers 'Dainik Jagran' and
'Hindustran' dated 25-10-2013. Thereafter,
notices were issued under Section 5A of the
Act to the tenure holders to file their
objections. Notice specified 09-12-2013 as
the date fixed for hearing of the objection. It
has been alleged that some of the petitioners
filed their objections, which were more or
less similar in nature. Further case set up by
the petitioners is that though all the
petitioners were present in person on the date
fixed but since neither the Additional District
Magistrate nor the Special Land Acquisition
Officer were present, no hearing took place
on the aforesaid date. The declaration under
Section 6 was published in the official
gazette on 30-10-2014. The substance of the
said notification was published in the
newspapers on 15-12-2014.
5. First submission advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioners is that
impugned notification under Section 6 of
the Act was published beyond the period
of one year from the date of notification
under Section 4 of the Act, hence, the
same is null and void in view of proviso
to Section 6 of the Act. It is also
submitted that no publication of the
substance of the aforesaid notification
was ever made by beat of drum in the
locality as mandated by Section 4 of the
Act, hence, the acquisition is bad in law.
6. The factual assertion laying down
the foundation for the basis of the
aforesaid argument are contained in
paragraphs 8 to 12 of the writ petition
which are quoted hereunder :
"8. That on 19th October, 2013, the
State
Government
published
two
notifications
in
U.P.
extra-ordinary
Gazette proposing to acquire land in
Uravar Hashtaraf, Tehsil & Pargana
Sikohabad, district Firozabad & Aslempur
Nagla
Kanhar,
Tehsil
&
Pargana
Sikohabad, district Firozabad.
9. That according to the aforesaid
notifications, the land was needed for a
public purpose, namely, for development
of Access Controlled Express Way from
Agra to Lucknow. It was further stated
that a site-plan of the land may be
inspected in the Office of the Collector,
Firozabad.
10. That it may be stated here that
the aforesaid state of fact contained in the
2 All] Chandra Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. Secretary Industrial Development & Ors.
519
notifications is absolutely wrong. No siteplans have been prepared so far.
11. That a copy of the aforesaid
notification
was
published
in
two
newspapers on 25th October, 2013. they
were published in Dainik Jagran and
Dainik Hindusthan of the aforesaid date.
12. That it may be further stated here
that no publication by beat of drums was
ever made on the substance of
the
aforesaid notifications in the locality, as
mandated by Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for
short).
7. An affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the State respondents denying
the allegations made in the writ petition. It
may be relevant to quote the following
paragraphs of the affidavit filed on behalf
of the State :
"7. That, the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued
for acquiring the land of village Uravar
Hashtaraf and village Aslempur Nagla
Kanhar, Tehsil & Pargana Sikohabad,
district Firozabad for the development
and construction of Access Controlled
Expressway (Green Field) Project. The
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act,
1894 was issued by the Collector,
Firozabad on 07.10.2013. The notification
dated 07.10.2013 was published in the
official gazette of the government of U.P.
on 19.10.2013.
8. That, after publication of the
official gazette of the Government dated
19.10.2013, the notification was further
published in two daily newspapers,
namely "Dainik Jagran" and "Hindustan"
on 25.10.2013. Both the daily newspapers
are published from Agra and has a wide
circulation within the adjoining district of
Agra, which are included in the Agra
Division.
9.
That,
after
publication
of
the
notification in the two daily newspapers
having wide circulation, further steps
were taken for issuing general public
notice/Munadi on 30.10.2013. By public
notice/Munadi dated 30.10.2013 it was
directed to be served on the village
Pradhan of the concerned village, which
was done actually on 07.11.2013. It was
published and pasted on the notice board
of
the Tehsildar
Office
of Tehsil
Shikohabad and for the office of Block
Development Officer, Shikohabad. It was
further directed that the notice be served
and pasted on the Panchayat Bhawan of
the village/Vidyalaya Bhawan, Block and
Tehsil including the Nazarat of the
Collector and the notice be pasted on the
notice board of the office of such places.
The notice on the official notice board of
the
Block
Development
Officer,
Firozabad was served and pasted on the
notice board on his office on 01.11.2013.
Similarly, the notice was received in the
office of Tehsildar, Shikohabad on
01.11.2013, and it was pasted on the
notice board of the Tehsil on 01.11.2013.
The Munadikarta, Ramesh, Chaukidar of
the village put his signature after Munadi
on 07.11.2013 and has also obtained the
signatures of villagers as witnesses of the
public
notice/Munadi.
The
Process
Server, Saurabh Kumar and Rajendra
Babu, filed their report dated 07.11.2013
before the Additional Collector (Land
Acquisition), agra stating therein that the
Munadi has been done on 07.11.2013 in
the village Uravar Hashtaraf and similar
public notice/Munadi was done in respect
of village Aslaimpur Nagla Kanhar on
07.11.2013.
In
respect
of
village
Aslaimpur Nagla Kanhar, the Block
Development Officer and the Tehsildar
520
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were served with the notice to be put up
and pasted on the notice board on their
office
on
01.11.2013
and
the
Munadi/notice was served on the Village
Pradhan, Kusma Devi on 07.11.2013 in
the presence of villagers as witness.
10. That, as stated hereinabove, the
notification in the official gazette under
Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was done on
19.10.2013 and it was published in the
two daily newspapers on 25.10.2013 with
a
further
publication
by
public
notice/Munadi in the village concerned on
07.11.2013 including the publication by
pasting on the notice board of the office
of Block Development Officer, Tehsildar
Shikohabad, Vidyalaya Bhawan and the
Panchayat Bhawan of the village.
11. That, the notification under
Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894, which has
been made on 30th October, 2014 and
was published in the official gazette on
30th October, 2014, is well within the
period of one year from the last date of
publication of public notice. The last date
of publication in the present case is to be
taken as on 07.11.2013, on which date the
public notice was given to the villagers by
Munadi and service on the village
Pradhan and other persons and was pasted
on the Vidyalaya Bhawan, Panchayat
Bhawan. For this purpose a reference may
be made to Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides
that "the last date of such publication and
the giving of such public notice, being
hereinafter referred to as the last date of
publication of the notification". Thus it is
clear that the last date of publication of
the public notice is 07.11.2013. In view of
the aforesaid factual position, the one year
from the last date of publication of the
public notice would be 07.11.2014.
Notification under Section 6(1) of the
Act, 1894 published in the official gazette
on 30.10.2014 is well within a period of
one year. By no stretch of imagination it
can be said that the notification under
Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894 has been
issued after lapse of one year. Thus the
submission
and
contention
of
the
petitioners is misconceived and not based
on correct facts.
12. That, after receiving the public
notice in the village by way of Munadi,
the
villagers
filed
their
respective
objections before the Additional District
Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Agra.
13. That, the petitioners have made
effort before this Hon'ble Court in the writ
petition to influence the Hon'ble Court by
saying that the notification under Section
6(1) of the Act, 1894 has been done after
the lapse of one year of the notification
issued under Section 4(1) of the Act,
1894.
14.
That,
in
the
notification
published under Section 6(1)/16 of the
Act, 1894 issued on 30th October, 2014, it
has specifically been mentioned that the
notification was issued by the Collector,
Firozabad on 07.10.2013, which was
notified in the official gazette on
19.10.2013 and thereafter, Munadi was
done on the spot on 07.11.2013.
15. That, thus it is clear that it is
established from the record that last
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act,
1894 was done on 07.11.2013 and
notification under Section 6(1) of the Act,
1894 was done on 30.10.2014, which is
well within the period of one year. The
original records are available with the
respondent authorities, which may be
perused
by
the
Hon'ble
Court,
if
necessary."
8. Before proceeding to consider the
submission, it may be relevant to quote
Section 4(1) of the Act which reads as
under :
2 All] Chandra Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. Secretary Industrial Development & Ors.
521
"4. (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, a notification to
that effect shall be published in the
Official Gazette, and the Collector shall
cause public notice of the substance of
such notification to be given at convenient
places in the said locality."
9.
It may also be relevant to quote
Section 6 of the Act which reads as under :
"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 subsection (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
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 (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, 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)
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 a company,
wholly or partly out of public revenues or
some fund controlled or managed by a
local authority.
(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.
(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
acquire the land in manner hereinafter
appearing."
10. A plain reading of the aforesaid
provisions of the Act goes to show that
whenever the appropriate Government
feels necessity of need of a land for any
public purpose, it is under an obligation to
publish the notification in the official
522
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
gazette and in two daily newspapers
having circulation in the locality out of
which one newspaper should be in
regional language and also to give public
notice of substance of such notification at
convenient place in the locality. After
complying the mandate of Section 5A of
the Act and upon receipt of the report of
the Collector, the Government is required
to proceed under Section 6(1) of the Act.
Clause (ii) of Section 6(1) of the Act
provides that no declaration in respect of
any land covered by notification under
Section 4(1) after enforcement of the
Amendment Act, 1984 can be made after
expiry of one year from the date of
publication
of
notification.
The
Amendment Act, 1984 was enforced on
24-09-2004. Thus after 24-09-2004 no
declaration under Section 6 of the Act can
be made after expiry of period of one year
from
the
date
of
publication
of
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
11.
In other words, a declaration is
required to be made under Section 6(1) of
the Act within one year from the date of
publication of notification under Section
4(1) of the Act. The submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioners that notification
was published beyond the period of one
year is based on the allegation that no
publication by beat of drums was made
and thus in accordance with the Section
4(1) of the Act, the last date of publication
is 19-10-2013 and that under Section 6(1)
of the Act was published in newspapers on
15-12-2014 and thus was beyond the
period of one year.
12. A plain reading of Section 4 and
6 of the Act suggests that under Section 4
a notification is required to be published
in the manner laid down in the Section
itself. However, under Section 6 a
declaration has to be first made and the
same is to be published in the manner
provided under Section 6(2) of the Act.
The first proviso to Section 6(1) lays
down time limit of one year within which
declaration is to be made. It is significant
to note that there is no time limit
prescribed
for
publication
of
the
declaration so made since the first proviso
to Section 6(1) only provides time limit
for declaration and not for publication.
The Apex Court in the case of Sriniwas
Ramnath Khatod v. State of Maharashtra,
2002(1) SCC 689, after considering the
provisions of Section 4 & 6 and 11A of
the Act has drawn a distinction between
the words 'Declaration' and 'Publication'
used in Section 4 and 6 of the Act and 11A of the Act. It has been observed in
paragraph 12 as under :
12. In our view 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". To be noted that under
Section 4 the notification has to be
published. Again under Section 11-A the
period of two years has to be computed
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 word "published" in
clauses (i) and (ii) of the first proviso to
Section 6(1) refers 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 wording of the first
proviso to Section 6 (1) becomes
important. The proviso lays down that no
declaration (under Section 6) shall be
2 All] Chandra Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. Secretary Industrial Development & Ors.
523
made after expiry of three years [under
clause (i)] where the notification under
Section 4 is published before the
commencement of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 and after expiry
of one year [under clause (ii) where
notification
under
Section
4
was
published after commencement of the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1984. Thus the proviso clearly talks of
"publication" in respect of notification
under Section 4 and then provides 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."
13. It may also be relevant to quote
the following observations made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Eugenio Misquita and others vs. State of
Goa and others, (1997) 8 SCC 47 :
"7. 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 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
proviso to Section 6(1).
8. According to the learned counsel,
the limitation prescribed under clause (ii)
of the first proviso to Section 6(1) has to
be construed 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 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 clause (ii) of the first
proviso to Section 6(1).
9. 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 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 11A 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.
524
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. This is also the view taken by
this Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti's case. The learned Judges framed
the question thus: (SCC p. 499, para 4)
"4. 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."
11. 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: (SCC
pp. 499-500, paras 4 and 5)
"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 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) of the 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
2 All] Chandra Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. Secretary Industrial Development & Ors.
525
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 subsection (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 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 skillful manner of
management
with
the
lower
level
officials."
14. Thereafter, the Court proceeded
to analyze the scheme and policy of the
Act as under :
"16. The above view of this Court
lends support to the view 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 publication in the series that should be
taken into account, but the publication
that was made in the first instance under
Section 6.
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 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 clauses (i) and (ii) of
the first proviso to Section 6(1) when it is
published in the official gazette."
15. It may also be relevant to quote
the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of General
Manager,
Department
of
526
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Telecommunications,Thiruvananthapuram
v. Jacob son of Kochuvarkey Kalliath
(Dead) by LRS. and others, (2003) 9
SCCC 662 :
"We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel on
either side. The Division Bench seems to
have committed a patent error, despite the
decision of this Court reported in Eugenio
Misquita v. State of Goa (which does not
appear to have been brought to its notice)
on a literal construction of Section 11-A
of the Act, by proceeding on a hypothesis
that if the Collector who was obligated to
make an award under Section 11 within a
period of two years from the date of the
publication of the declaration, the entire
proceedings for the acquisition of the land
shall lapse, completely overlooking the
mandate contained in sub-section (2) of
Section 6 that of the various modes of
publications envisaged therein, the last of
any of the three modes in the series
should be taken to be the date of
publication and consequently taken into
account for purposes of making the award
as laid down in Section 11-A. While
applying the ratio in Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti v. Markand Singh this
Court in Eugenio Misquita observed at
SCC p.52, para 9 as hereunder:
"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.
That apart, the words "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" leave no room for any
assumptions to the contrary. Thus, the
view taken by the High Court in this case
not only runs counter to the mandate of
law enacted by Parliament , but is
opposed to the dicta of this Court and
consequently
does
not
merit
our
acceptance."
16. The law as enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court quoted hereinabove
clearly lays down that the declaration
must be made within one year from the
date of publication of the notification
under Section 4 and for the purpose of
calculating the limitation prescribed under
clause (ii) of proviso to Section 6(1) of
the Act, it is not the last in the publication
of the series which should be taken into
account but the declaration that was made
in the first instance under Section 6.
17. The next question which
immediately arises for consideration is
staring point of limitation of one year
prescribed by clause (ii) of proviso to
Section 6. Section 4(1) of the Act has
already been quoted above. It prescribes
three modes of publication of the intent of
the Government viz. (i) official gazette,
(ii)
two
daily
newspapers
having
circulation in the locality, one of which
should be in regional language; (iii)
public notice of the substance of such
notification
at
convenient
place
in
locality. By Amending Act No. 68 of
1984 it was provided that last of the dates
of the publication and public notice shall
2 All] Chandra Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. Secretary Industrial Development & Ors.
527
be referred to as the date of publication of
the notification. Thus the Statute has itself
prescribed that out of the three prescribed
modes of publication the last of the dates
of such publication and the giving of
public notice shall be taken as the date of
publication of notification under Section
4(1) of the Act.
18. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Eugenio Misquita (Supra), has answered the
issue by observing in paragraph 7 (quoted
above) that it is the last date in the series of
publication made under Section 4(1) which is
the starting of limitation for the purpose of
proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Act. Same
view has been taken by a Division Bench of
this Court in the case of M/s. Sahara India
commercial Corporation Limited & others v.
State of U.P. and others, [2010(8) ADJ
498(DB)] by observing in paragraph 96 of
the reports as under :
"The proviso (ii) of sub section (1)
provides that no declaration, in respect of
any
particular
land
covered
by
a
notification under sub section (1) of
Section 4, shall be published after the
commencement of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984, after the expiry
of one year from the date of publication of
the notification. The date of publication of
notification is provided by the same
amendment of 1984, to section 4 (1) to be
the last of the dates of the publication
under sub section (1) of Section 4, and the
giving of such public notice. Sub section
(1) of Section 4 provides for three
different methods of publication. The
notification has to be published in the
Official Gazette and in two daily
newspapers circulated in the locality of
which at least one shall be in the regional
language.
Further,
the
Collector
is
required to cause public notice of the
substance of such notification to be given
at convenient places in the said locality.
By Act No. 68 of 1984, it was provided
that the last of the dates of such
publication, and giving of such public
notice, is to be referred to as the date of
publication of the notification. The last of
the dates of the publication in the present
case being the date on which the notice
was
published
in
the
locality
on
6.11.2004, by beat of drums is thus to be
treated as the last of the dates of
publication for the purposes of counting
limitation under the proviso (ii) to Section
6 (1) of the Act. "
19.
Now coming to the facts of the
present case, according to the petitioners,
there was no publication by beat of drums
in the locality and the last date of
publication under Section 4 was 25-10-2013
when it was published in two local Hindi
daily newspaper. However, the affidavit
filed by the respondents clearly asserts that
publication by beat of drums in the village
took place on 07-11-2013. The State
respondents along with their counter
affidavit have filed documents certifying
that Munadi was done. The documents
contains the signature of Gram Pradhan and
as also that of the 'Munadi Karta' and also of
two witnesses. The document certifies that
notices were served on the interested
persons and were pasted on the Panchayat
Bhawan, Tehsil Officer and the Collectorate
and also a 'Public Munadi' was done. The
document is counter signed by Additional
District Magistrate (Land Acquisition). The
allegations of 'public notice/Munadi' are
contained in paragraph 10 of the affidavit of
the State. In the rejoinder affidavit, there is
no specific denial of the allegations. Denial
of the same in the rejoinder affidavit is
vague and evasive and what has been stated
is that the contents are not admitted and the
528
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
correct facts have already been stated in the
foregoing paragraph of this affidavit. In the
foregoing paragraph of the rejoinder
affidavit though the contents of the
certificate have been tried to be denied on
various grounds but they do not inspire
much confidence.
20. In view of the allegations made
in the pleadings of the parties, we are of
the considered opinion that public notice
was given and 'Munadi' by beat of drums
was effected in the locality on 07-11-2013
which is to be taken as the last date of
publication of notification under Section 4
of the Act. Undisputedly, the publication
of declaration under Section 6 in the
official gazette is dated 30-10-2014.
21. In view of above facts and
discussions, we are constrained to hold
that publication under Section 6 was made
well within one year from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act
and the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners in this regard
are devoid of merits and have no force.
22. The second argument advanced on
behalf of the petitioners is that notice under
Section 5A was never served upon the
landholders and no hearing took place under
Section 5A of the Act inasmuch as on the date
fixed
neither
the
Additional
District
Magistrate nor the Special Land Acquisition
Officer were present and thus the so called
report sent by the Collector based upon which
the State Government made a declaration
vitiates the sanctity of publication.
23. Section 5-A of the Act reads as
under :
"5-A. Hearing of objections. - (1)
Any person interested in any land which
has been notified under Section 4, subsection (1), as being needed or likely to be
needed for a public purpose or for a
Company may, within thirty days from
the date of the publication of the
notification, object to the acquisition of
the land or of any land in the locality, as
the case may be."
24. Section 5-A empowers the
interested persons to object to the
acquisition of the land. However, there is
limitation of 30 days prescribed from the
date of issuance of the notification of
filing objection.
25.