# Hare Krishna Public School v. Project Manager Dedicated, Freight Corridore Corp. & Others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1172
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-25
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Abhinava Upadhya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hare-krishna-public-school-v-project-manager-dedicated-freight-corridore-corp-42366
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Railways Act 1989-Section 20 A (1) (as
amended by Act 2008)-Land Acquisition
for Railway by notification under Section
20 A (1) on dated 10.02.2009-substance
published on 06.03.2009-Deceleration
under Section 20 E (1) dated 15.02.2010
published on 18.02.2010-well within one
week-held-acquisition proceeding legalpetition to quash acquisition proceedingdimissed.

Held: Para 26

In view of foregoing discussions. we are
of the view that declaration issued under
Section 20E(1) of the Railways Act,
dated 15th February, 2010 published in
the gazette on 18th February, 2010 was
well within one year from the date of
publication of substance of notification
i.e. 6th March, 2009. Thus the prayer of
the petitioner for quashing the entire
acquisition proceeding on the aforesaid
ground cannot be accepted.
Case Law discussed:
2011 (3) AWC 3112=2011 (11) SCC 100;
(1995) 1 SCC 133; (1995) 2 SCC 497; (1997) 8
SCC 47; Special Civil Application No.6097 of
2010 (Raghjibhai Kanjibhai Kharsan vs. Union
of India) decided on 17th January, 2011; S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.9839 of 2011 (Pushpa
Devi Maloo vs. Land Acquisition Officer and
others) decided on 2nd April, 2012

## Text

_Characters 0–39,979 of 46,197. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39979 for what follows._

1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
been necessary for the plaintiffs to implead
the petitioner as subsequent purchaser.
Accordingly, if petitioner purchased the
property during pendency of the suit he
could very well apply for his impleadment
as
subsequent
purchaser.
The
lower
revisional court has wrongly distinguished
the authority of the Supreme Court reported
in Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. Vs.
Farida Khatoon and Anr. AIR 2005 SC
2209 : (2005) 11 SCC 403 : 2005 (2) ARC
174. It has been held in the said authority
that if during pendency of the suit interest is
transferred then transferee is a necessary or
at least proper party as it is a case of
assignment.

4. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. It is
directed that petitioner shall be impleaded in
the suit as defendant No.2. However it is
clarified that petitioner will not be entitled
to take any plea which can not be taken by
the defendant No.1.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABHINAVA UPADHYA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32317 OF 2012

Hare Krishna Public School ...Petitioner
Versus
Project
Manager
Dedicated,
Freight
Corridore Corp. & Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Govind Saran
Railways Act 1989-Section 20 A (1) (as
amended by Act 2008)-Land Acquisition
for Railway by notification under Section
20 A (1) on dated 10.02.2009-substance
published on 06.03.2009-Deceleration
under Section 20 E (1) dated 15.02.2010
published on 18.02.2010-well within one
week-held-acquisition proceeding legalpetition to quash acquisition proceedingdimissed.

Held: Para 26

In view of foregoing discussions. we are
of the view that declaration issued under
Section 20E(1) of the Railways Act,
dated 15th February, 2010 published in
the gazette on 18th February, 2010 was
well within one year from the date of
publication of substance of notification
i.e. 6th March, 2009. Thus the prayer of
the petitioner for quashing the entire
acquisition proceeding on the aforesaid
ground cannot be accepted.
Case Law discussed:
2011 (3) AWC 3112=2011 (11) SCC 100;
(1995) 1 SCC 133; (1995) 2 SCC 497; (1997) 8
SCC 47; Special Civil Application No.6097 of
2010 (Raghjibhai Kanjibhai Kharsan vs. Union
of India) decided on 17th January, 2011; S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.9839 of 2011 (Pushpa
Devi Maloo vs. Land Acquisition Officer and
others) decided on 2nd April, 2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. The petitioner by this writ
petition, has prayed for quashing the
entire proceedings for acquisition of land
initiated by notification dated 10th
February, 2009 published in the Gazette
of India in exercise of power under
Section 20A(1) of the Railways Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as the
Railways Act).

2. We have heard Sri Ashish
Agrawal,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
Sri
S.P.
Gupta, learned
3 All] Hare Krishna Public School V. Project Manager Dedicated, Freight Corridore Corp. & Others 1173
Advocate General for respondents No.1,
2 and 3 and Sri Govind Saran appearing
for respondents No.1 and 4.

3. Brief facts of the case as emerge
from pleadings of the parties are; the
petitioner is purchaser of Plot No.270/2
by sale deed dated 11th April, 2008. A
notification dated 10th February, 2009
under Section 20A(1) of the Railways
Act, as amended by the Railways
(Amendment) Act, 2008, was published
in the Gazette of India notifying its
intention to acquire the land situate in
district Aligarh for carrying out special
railway
project,
namely,
Eastern
Dedicated Freight Corridor. Plot No.270
was also included in the notification. The
substance
of
notification
was
also
published in local newspaper "Amar
Ujala" dated 6th March, 2009. The
declaration
of
acquisition
as
contemplated by Section 20E of the
Railways Act was issued by gazette
notification dated 15th February, 2010
published in the gazette of India Extra
Ordinary dated 18th February, 2010. The
substance of notification dated 15th
February, 2010 was also published in the
newspapers on 4th March, 2010. The
petitioner claimed to have filed objection
on 26th March, 2010. The award was
passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 19th January, 2011. The
petitioner, after coming to know about
the award, made an application to the
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer
requesting that Plot No.270/2 should not
be acquired and an application to above
effect was submitted by the petitioner on
16th March, 2012. The petitioner was
communicated by letter dated 23rd
March, 2012 that objection raised by the
petitioner after 29th February, 2010
cannot be accepted since the land
acquisition was proposed keeping in
view the alignment of railway track after
considering all technical aspects, hence
the land of the petitioner cannot be
exempted
from
acquisition.
The
petitioner has come up in this writ
petition challenging the entire acquisition
proceedings as well as the order dated
23rd March, 2012.

4. Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned
counsel for the petitioner, challenging
the entire acquisition proceedings, has
submitted that notification under Section
20A(1) of the Railways Act having been
published on 10th February, 2009 and
declaration under Section 20E(1) having
not been published within one year from
10th
February,
2009,
the
entire
acquisition has lapsed and ceased to have
any effect by virtue provisions of Section
20E(3) of the Railways Act. He submits
that the relevant date for reckoning one
year period for publication of declaration
under Section 20E(1) is the date when
notification under Section 20A(1) was
published i.e. 10th February, 2009 and
the declaration having been published on
15th/18th
February,
2010,
the
notification dated 10th February, 2010
shall cease to have any effect and the
entire acquisition proceedings deserve to
be set-aside on this ground alone. He
further
submits
that
the
date
of
publication of substance of notification
in local newspapers as contemplated
under Section 20S(4) of the Railways
Act is not relevant for reckoning the
period of one year. He further submits
that
requirement
of
publication
of
substance of the notification under
Section 20A(4) is only procedural
requirement and non compliance of the
same may have different consequences
but the said publication is not relevant
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
for reckoning the period of one year. He
has placed reliance on a judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Dedicated
Freight Corridor Corporation of India
vs. Subodh Singh and others reported in
2011(3) AWC 3112 = 2011(11) SCC
100.

5. Sri S.P. Gupta, learned Advocate
General, refuting the submissions of
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
contends that relevant date for start of
limitation is the date when substance of
notification
is
published
in
local
newspapers and the publication in the
local newspapers having been made on
6th March, 2009, the declaration issued
by notification dated 15th February,
2010 published on 18th February, 2010
is within the period of one year. He
submits that Section 20A(4) mandates
publication of substance of notification
in the newspapers and the publication of
notification under Section 20A(1) shall
be complete only when the substance is
published in the local newspapers. He
submits that the judgment of the Apex
Court in Dedicated Freight Corridor's
case (supra) is not applicable in facts of
the present case since in the said case the
Apex
Court
was
considering
the
provisions of Section 20E(1) in context
of Sections 20F(2) and (4) of the
Railways Act. Sri Gupta has also placed
reliance on judgments of Gujarat High
Court
and
Rajasthan
High
Court
considering Sections 20A and 20E of the
Railways Act and submitted that Gujarat
High Court and Rajasthan High Court
have taken the view that running of
limitation of one year period shall start
from the date when the notification under
Section 20A(1) is published in local
newspapers.

6. Sri Govind Saran, learned
counsel for the Railways, has adopted the
submissions raised by Sri S.P. Gupta and
submitted that declaration under Section
20E(1) has been issued within the period
of limitation and there is no error in
issuing the declaration. Sri Saran has
also placed reliance on the judgments of
Gujarat High Court and Rajasthan High
Court in support of his submissions.

7.

We
have
considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.

8. Before we proceed to consider
the rival submissions raised before us, it
is useful to have a look on the statutory
provisions of the Railways Act.

9. Chapter-IVA has been inserted in
the Railways Act by Act No.11 of 2008
providing for "Land Acquisition for a
Special Railway Project". Section 20A
relates to power to acquire land, Section
20B contains power to enter for survey,
Section 20C provides for evaluation of
damages during survey, measurement
etc, Section 20D deals with hearing of
objection and Section 20E deals with
declaration of acquisition. Section 20A,
20D and 20E, which are relevant in the
present case, are as follows:-

"20-A. Power to acquire land, etc.-
(1) Where the Central Government is
satisfied that for a public purpose any
land is required for execution of a
special railway project, it may, by
notification, declare its intention to
acquire such land.

(2) Every notification under subsection (1), shall give a brief description
of the land and of the special railway
3 All] Hare Krishna Public School V. Project Manager Dedicated, Freight Corridore Corp. & Others 1175
project for which the land is intended to
be acquired.

(3) The State Government or the
Union territory, as the case may be, shall
for the purposes of this section, provide
the details of the land records to the
competent authority, whenever required.

(4) The competent authority shall
cause the substance of the notification to
be published in two local newspapers,
one of which shall be in a vernacular
language.

20-D. Hearing of objections, etc.-
(1) Any person interested in the land
may, within a period of thirty days from
the date of publication of the notification
under subsection (1) of Section 20-A,
object to the acquisition of land for the
purpose mentioned in that sub-section.

(2) Every objection under subsection (1), shall be made to the
competent authority in writing, and shall
set out the grounds thereof and the
competent authority shall give the
objector an opportunity of being heard,
either
in
person
or
by
a
legal
practitioner, and may, after hearing all
such objections and after making such
further enquiry, if any, as the competent
authority thinks necessary, by order,
either allow or disallow the objections.

Explanation.-For the purposes of
this sub-section, "legal practitioner" has
the same meaning as in clause (i) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Advocates
Act, 1961 (25 of 1961).

(3)
Any
order
made
by
the
competent authority under sub-section
(2) shall be final.

20-E. Declaration of acquisition.-
(1) Where no objection under sub-section
(1) of Section 20-D has been made to the
competent authority within the period
specified therein or where the competent
authority has disallowed the objections
under sub-section (2) of that section, the
competent authority shall, as soon as
may be, submit a report accordingly to
the Central Government and on receipt
of such report, the Central Government
shall declare, by notification, that the
land should be acquired for the purpose
mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section
20-A.

(2) On the publication of the
declaration under sub-section (1), the
land shall vest absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances.

(3) Where in respect of any land, a
notification has been published under
subsection (1) of Section 20-A for its
acquisition, but no declaration under
sub-section (1) of this section has been
published within a period of one year
from the date of publication of that
notification, the said notification shall
cease to have any effect:

Provided that in computing the said
period of one year, the period during
which any action or proceedings to be
taken in pursuance of the notification
issued under subsection (1) of Section
20-A is stayed by an order of a court
shall be excluded.

(4) A declaration made by the
Central Government under sub-section
(1) shall not be called in question in any
court or by any other authority."
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

10. As noted above, the bone of
contention between the parties is as to
whether one year period provided for
issuance of declaration under Section
20E(1) of the Railways Act shall begin
from the date of notification issued under
Section 20A(1) or from the date when
the cause of substance of notification is
published in the local newspapers.
Section 20A(1) provides that where the
Central Government is satisfied that for a
public purpose any land is required for
execution of a special railway project, it
may
by
notification
declare
its
intention to acquire such land. Subsection (4) of Section 20A mandates that
competent authority shall cause the
substance of the notification to be
published in two local newspapers.

11. Section 20D of the Railways
Act, which provides for hearing of
objection, contemplates that any person
interested in the land may, within a
period of thirty days from the date of
publication of the notification under
Sub-section (1) of Section 20A of the
Railways Act, object to the acquisition of
land. Section 20D uses the phrase ".... 30
days from the date of publication of
notification under sub-section (1) of
Section 20A".

12. Section 20E(3) provides that
where a notification has been published
under sub-section (1) of Section 20A and
no declaration has been published within
a period of one year from the date of
publication, the said notification shall
cease to have any effect. Section 20E(3)
also uses the phrase "from the date of
publication of that notification". The
words "that notification" obviously refer
to notification under Sub-section (1) of
Section 20A. Both the sections 20D(1)
and 20E(3) contemplate "publication of
notification" issued under Sub-section
(1)
of
Section
20A.
The
word
"notification"
has
been
defined
in
Section 2(26) of the Railways Act in
following manner:-

"2(26)
''Notification'
means
a
notification published in the Official
Gazette."

13. The notification under Section
20A(1) is thus required to be published
in the official gazette. The word
"notification" itself inhere the concept of
publication in the official gazette that is
why in Section 20A(1) of the Railways
Act the legislature had not used the
words "publication of the notification in
the official gazette" because publication
in
the
official
gazette
is
already
contemplated in the word "notification".
In sub-section (4) of Section 20A the
legislature has provided for publication
of the substance of the notification in
two
local
newspapers.
The
words
"notification to be published" have been
used in sub-section (4). Sections 20D(1)
and 20E(3), as quoted above, use the
phrase "publication of the notification".
The use of the words "notification to be
published" in Section 20A(4) has to be
given some meaning because legislature
does not waste a single word or use any
superfluous word in a statute which is
one of the accepted principles of
statutory interpretation.

14. The interpretation, which we
have put to the words "notification to be
published" as used in Section 20A (4)
has to be tested in another manner also.
Suppose under Section 20D(1), which
also uses the words "publication of the
notification", the date of notification as
3 All] Hare Krishna Public School V. Project Manager Dedicated, Freight Corridore Corp. & Others 1177
published in the official gazette under
Section 20A(1) is taken for the start of
period of 30 days of limitation for filing
an objection, the land owner may not see
gazette publication and thus shall be
deprived of exercising his right of
objection within 30 days and in the event
the
publication
of
substance
of
notification is after one month from the
date of publication of notification in the
official gazette, he may have no right of
objection even though he may file an
objection within 30 days from the date
the
substance
of
notification
was
published. Putting this interpretation to
Section 20D(1) shall obviously defeat the
purpose and object of providing 30 days
time to a land owner to submit his
objection to the proposed acquisition of
land. Thus we have no doubt that the
words "publication of the notification"
occurring under Section 20D(1) has to be
interpreted to mean the publication of
substance
of
the
notification
as
contemplated by Section 20A(4). If any
other meaning is put to the aforesaid
words that will defeat the very purpose
and object of Section 20D of the
Railways Act.

15. When for the purposes of
Section 20D the words "publication of
the notification" are to be treated to be
publication
of
substance
of
the
notification in two local newspapers, we
cannot impute any other meaning of the
words "publication of the notification"
under Section 20E(3) since Section
20E(3) also uses the same words
"publication of the notification". The
embargo in issuing declaration under
Section 20E(1) has been put with the
object and purpose that declaration under
Section 20E be issued within a period of
one year so that the proceeding may not
keep on hanging for a period longer than
one year. One year period has been
prescribed keeping in view the statutory
scheme which provides for filing of
objection within one month giving
opportunity by the competent authority
to an objector and after deciding the
objection filed under Section 20D(1). In
series of the events beginning from
declaration of intention by the Central
Government
to
acquire
land
by
notification all steps have to be given
meaning and purpose. The submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
sub-section (4) of Section 20A is only
procedural and may have different
consequences but is not relevant for
reckoning the limitation, cannot be
accepted.

16. The Apex Court had occasion to
consider as to whether publication of the
substance of notification is mandatory or
not under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 in the case of
State of Haryana and another vs.
Raghubir Dayal reported in (1995)1
SCC 133. Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for
publication of the notification in the
official gazette as well as in two daily
newspapers and also public notice of the
substance of notification in the locality.
Following was laid down by the Apex
Court in paragraph 4 of the said
judgment:-

"4. ..... It is true that the publication
of the substance of the notification under
Section 4(1) in the locality is mandatory.
The object of publication of notification
under Section 4(1) is that the owner of
the land sought to be acquired has to
exercise his valuable right to file his
objections under Section 5-A. The
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
publication of the substance of such
notification
in
the
locality
must,
therefore, be mandatory."

17. The Apex Court had also
occasion to consider the question as to
which is the date to be taken for
reckoning the period of limitation for
issuing a declaration under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in
several cases. In the case of Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti and another vs.
Makrand Singh and others reported in
(1995)2 SCC 497, the Apex Court laid
down following in paragraphs 4 and 5:-

"4. The question, therefore, is that
which date of the publications in three
steps i.e. publication in the Gazette, two
news papers and local publication to be
the last date for the purpose of
computing
three
years
limitation
prescribed in Clause (i) of the proviso to
s.6(1) of the Act. Prima facie, it gives an
impression that the last of any of the
three steps puts in motion, the running of
limitation of three years. But on deeper
probe, it does not appear to be so and
such a construction would easily defeat
the public purpose and deflects the
course of justice. So it is necessary to
understand the scheme and policy of the
Act to get the crux of the question. It is
seen that Sub-s.(1) of s.4 gives power of
eminent domain to the State to acquire
the land, whenever it appears to it that
the land is needed or likely to be needed
for any public purpose or for any
company, by a notification published in
the official gazette and two daily
newspapers circulating in that area and
at least one of them should be in the
regional language and also the Collector
is enjoined to cause public notice of the
substance of notification to be given at
convenient places in the said locality in
which the land is situated. It is also
mentioned thereunder that the last date
of such publication and the giving of
such public notice "being hereinafter
referred to " as the date of publication of
the notification. It would be seen that the
purpose of notification under s.4(1) is an
intimation to the owner or person having
an interest in the land that government
exercised the power of eminent domain
in relation to his land and for public
purpose his land is needed or likely to be
needed; puts an embargo on his freedom
to
deal
with
the
land
as
an
unencumbered land and also pegs the
price of the land prevailing as on that
date. It also is a caveat to the Collector
to make the award under s. 11 as well as
to determine the market value prevailing
as on the last of the dates to be the date
and the award should be made within a
period prescribed by s. 11-A. Lest the
entire acquisition shall stand lapsed. The
word 'hereinafter' is for such purposes as
well as for the purpose of determina-
tion of the compensation under Chapter
III of the Act as well. Therefore, the word
"hereinafter" referred to as the last date
of the publication of the notification is
the date from which the prevailing prices
of the land is to be computed etc.

5. Clause (i) of the proviso to s.6(1)
mandates
the
publication
of
the
declaration in the official gazette and it
should be within three years from the
date of the publication of the notification
under s.4(1) i.e. the last of the dates
referred to in s.4(1). The word 'publish'
emphasises the act accomplished i.e.
declaration under s.6(1) being published
in the official Gazette. The last date
under s.6(2) shall be the date for the
purposes "hereinafter referred to" would
3 All] Hare Krishna Public School V. Project Manager Dedicated, Freight Corridore Corp. & Others 1179
be not for computing the period of three
years prescribed in Clause (i) of proviso
to s.6(1) of the Act as it was already
done, but purposes to be followed
hereinafter. Otherwise language would
have been "hereinbefore done". Sub-s.(2)
as such did not prescribe any limitation
within which the declaration under s.6(1)
or other steps hereinafter to be taken, in
other words, the steps to be taken
thereafter in making the award under s.
11 or in computation of the period
prescribed in s. 11A. The publication of
the declaration in two daily newspapers
having circulation in the locality one of
which in the regional language and the
publication of the substance of the
declaration in the locality are ministerial
acts and is a procedural part. It appears
that these publications are required to be
done to make the declaration published
in the manner, to be conclusive evidence
of the public purpose under s.6(1) and
also to provide limitation to make the
award under s. 11 by the Collector. In
other words, the limitation prescribed
under s. 11A is for the purpose of making
the award and if the Collector fails to do
so, the entire proceeds under s.4(1) and
6(1) shall stand lapsed. If this consistent
policy of the Act is understood giving
teeth to the operational efficacy to the
scheme of the Act and public purpose the
Act seeks to serve, we are of the
considered view that publication in the
official gazette already made under
Clause (i) of proviso to subs.(1) of s.6 is
complete, as soon as the declaration
under s.6(1) was published in the official
gazette. That will be the date for the
purpose of computation of three years
period from the last of the dates of the
publication of the notification under
s.4(1). The procedural ministerial acts
prescribed under sub-s.(2) are only for
the purpose of the procedure to be
followed "hereinafter", 'in other words,
the steps to be taken subsequent to the
publication of the declaration under
s.6(1) of the Act. We cannot agree with
Sri Rana, the learned senior counsel,
that the date of making the declaration
by the Secretary to the Government or
the authorised officer is the date for
computing
period
of
three
years.
Equally, we cannot agree with the
learned counsel for the respondents, Sri
Padhaya,
that
publication
of
the
substance being the last date from which
the period of three years needs to be
computed.
Acceptance
of
either
contention would easily defeat the public
policy under the Act by skillful manner
or management with the lower level
officials. The High Court, therefore, was
not right in its conclusion that since
declaration
was
published
in
the
newspapers on June4, 1987, after the
expiry of three years, the declaration
under s.6(1) and the notification under
s.4(1) stood lapsed. It is clearly illegal.
The further contention of the learned
counsel for the respondent that other
contention raised in the writ petitions
need to be dealt with and so the cases
need to be remanded; has no force for
the reason that though they were pleaded
but the parties have chosen to argue only
the above contention. So it is not a fit
case for remand. The writ petitions
would stand dismissed. The appeals are
accordingly
allowed
but
in
the
circumstances without Costs."

18. Similar was the view taken by
the Apex Court in the case of Eugenio
Misquita and others vs. State of Goa
and others reported in (1997)8 SCC 47.
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

19. Much reliance has been placed
by the learned counsel for the petitioner
on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Dedicated
Freight
Corridor's
case
(supra). In the said case the Apex Court
had occasion to consider Section 20E
and 20F of the Railways Act. It is useful
to note the facts of the said case and
issues decided. The notification under
Section 20A was issued and thereafter
declaration under Section 20E(1) was
issued on 12th December, 2008 (gazetted
on 16th December, 2008). The public
notice referring to the notification dated
12th December, 2008 was published in
the newspapers on 20th February, 2009.
An order was passed by the competent
authority determining the compensation
under Section 20F(1) on 8th February,
2010. The acquisition was challenged
before the Apex Court and it was
contended that since the award was
published one year after the publication
of
substance
in
newspapers,
the
acquisition
proceeding
lapsed
as
contemplated by Section 20F(2). The
Apex Court considered the issue in
context of Sections 20E and 20F. One of
the questions which was framed for
consideration was, "Whether the period
of one year, stipulated under Section 20F(2) of the Act, for making the award,
has to be reckoned from the date of
publication of the declaration under
Section 20-E(1) of the Act in the Official
Gazette or from the date of any
subsequent publication of the declaration
in newspapers". The Apex Court in the
said judgment had laid down that for
purposes of computing period of one
year
for
making
an
award
as
contemplated by Section 20F(2), the date
of declaration under Section 20E(1) has
to be taken a beginning point of
limitation and the date of publication of
substance of notification is not relevant.
There cannot be any dispute to the
proposition laid down by the Apex Court
in the aforesaid case. It is also relevant to
note that Apex Court while considering
the
issue
of
beginning
point
for
reckoning the limitation for giving the
award has also referred to Section
20A(4) and has laid down that there is a
contrast in the statutory scheme as laid
down by Section 20A(4) as well as the
scheme as laid down in Section 20F
which is clear from the observations of
the Apex Court made in paragraph 6 of
the said judgment. Paragraph 6 of the
said judgment is reproduced below:-

"6. . Sub-section (1) of section 20E
of the Act provides that the central
government shall, on receipt of the
report
of the competent authority,
declare by notification that the land
should be acquired for the purpose
mentioned in section 20A(1). Sub-section
(2) of section 20E of the Act provides
that
on
the
publication
of
such
declaration by notification, by the
central government, under sub-section
(1), the lands shall vest absolutely in the
central
government
free
from
all
encumbrances. Clause (26) of section 2
defines "notification" as a notification
published in the official gazette. Section
20E thus requires the notification to be
published only in the official gazette. The
section does not require the notification
of declaration to be published in any
newspaper or by any other mode. By way
of contrast, we may refer to section
20A(4)
relating
to
preliminary
notification and 20F(4) relating to public
notice inviting claims before making the
award of the Act. Section 20A(4)
requires that in addition to publication of
a notification by the central government,
3 All] Hare Krishna Public School V. Project Manager Dedicated, Freight Corridore Corp. & Others 1181
of the declaration of its intention to
acquire
any
land,
the
competent
authority shall cause the substance of the
notification to be published in two local
newspapers one of which will be in a
vernacular language. Section 20F(4) of
the Act requires that before proceeding
to determine the compensation, the
competent authority shall give a public
notice in two local newspapers inviting
claims. Wherever newspaper publication
is required, it has been specifically
provided by the legislature. The absence
of a similar provision in section 20E for
publication in newspapers, makes it
clear
that
the
publication
of
the
declaration under section 20E(1) is
complete when it is published in the
official gazette. The publication of the
notification under section 20E(1), or its
substance, in any newspaper, is not
therefore a requirement under the Act.
Even if it is published in any newspaper,
such publication will be only for general
information and will not serve any
purpose under the Act."

20. The ratio of the judgment of the
Apex Court, as quoted above, clearly
distinguishes the statutory scheme under
Section 20A in context to Section 20E
and statutory scheme of Section 20F in
context to Section 20E. The Apex Court
in the said case was considering the
starting point of limitation for purposes
of Section 20F(2) which is entirely
different from the scheme given under
Section
20A.
Thus
the
aforesaid
judgment does not help the petitioner in
the
present
case
and
is
clearly
distinguishable, rather the said judgment
supports the interpretation which has
been put by us of Section 20A(4) where
while referring to Sections 20E and
20A(4) following was observed, "..... By
way of contrast, we may refer to Section
20A(4)
relating
to
preliminary
notification and 20F(4) relating to public
notice inviting claims before making the
award...". Thus the Apex Court itself has
also referred to provisions of Section
20A(4) as contrast to statutory scheme
under Section 20F.

21. Now we come to the judgment
of the Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat
High Court relied by the learned
Advocate General. The Gujarat High
Court in Special Civil Application
No.6097 of 2010 (Raghjibhai Kanjibhai
Kharsan vs. Union of India) decided on
17th January, 2011 had considered the
same issue which has come up in the
present case as to whether the period
contemplated under Section 20E(3) of
the Railways Act is to be reckon from
the date of publication of the notice in
gazette or from the date of publication of
the notification in the newspapers. The
facts of the said case were noted in
paragraph 4 of the judgment, which is
quoted below:-

"4. As noted hereinabove, the
notification was published in a gazette
on 10.2.2009 under Sub-section (1) of
Section 20A. But, this very notification
was
published
in
newspaper
on
27.2.2009. Whereas, the notification
under sub-section (3) of Section 20E was
published on 24.2.2010. The contention
of the petitioner is that if one year is to
be reckoned from the date of publication
of the notification in a gazette, one year
has already expired on 9.2.2010 and
therefore, this notification under Section
20E(3) is beyond the period prescribed
and
therefore,
notification
dated
10.2.2009 shall cease to have any effect."
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

22. The Gujarat High Court after
considering the rival submissions laid
down following in paragraphs 8, 8.1, 9
and 10, which are as under:-

"8.
The
Court
after
giving
thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions of the learned advocates for
the parties, is of the opinion that
requirement under the law of ''publishing
notification in a newspaper' is not an
empty formality. It is definitely with ''a
purpose' and that ''purpose' is that the
public at large takes ''note' of the same
and ''acts' on the same. That being so the
date of publication in newspaper is to be
given due recognition. This recognition
can be given by reckoning the period
prescribed from the date of publication
of notification in a newspaper.

8.1. Learned advocate for the
respondent authorities submitted that the
Act being recent one, i.e. of 1989, he is
not able to lay hand on any decision
wherein period for publication of a
notification under Section 20E(3) is
reckoned from the date of publication of
the notification under Section 20A(1) of
the Act in a newspaper. He submitted
that if his submission that period be
reckoned from the date of publication in
newspaper is accepted, it is not going to
cause any absurd result and it is not
going to cause any prejudice either. In
support of his submission that no
prejudice is going to be caused to the
petitioner, he submitted that though the
notification
was
published
in
a
Government
gazette
under
Section
20A(1) on 10.2.2009 and the same was
published in newspaper on 27.7.2009 till
the filing of the petition, the petitioner
has
not
filed
any
objection,
as
contemplated under the law, meaning
thereby the petitioner has not objected to
the acquisition of his land.

9. The learned advocate for the
respondent Railways also submitted that
the present acquisition of the land is for
the purpose of Special Railway Project,
Western Dedicated Freight Corridor,
which is going to be as important as an
''artery' in human body. He submitted
that accepting the submission of the
learned advocate for the petitioner will
amount to allowing a too technical
submission to frustrate the object of very
important project.

10. The Court has found the
submissions of learned advocate for the
railway acceptable, and is convinced of
the fact that in the matter of publication
of the notification under Section 20E(3)
of the Act, ''the period is to be reckoned
from the date of publication of the
notification in a newspaper and not in a
official gazette'."

23. The Rajasthan High Court in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9839 of 2011
(Pushpa
Devi
Maloo
vs.
Land
Acquisition Officer and others) decided
on 2nd April, 2012 had considered the
same issue and laid down following in
paragraphs 8 and 9:-

"8. Consequently, for the purpose of
a declaration under Section 20E(1), the
period of one year within which such a
declaration has to be made is to be
reckoned from the date of publication of
the substance of notification under
Section 20A(4) in two local newspapers
which completes the Section 20A of the
Act of 1989 process. The language of
Section 20E(3) of the Act of 1989 also
mandates that a declaration under
3 All] Hare Krishna Public School V. Project Manager Dedicated, Freight Corridore Corp. & Others 1183
Section 20E(1) has to be made within
one year from the publication of the
acquisition proceedings under Section
20A(4) of the Act of 1989. Publication of
the notification is under Section 20A(4)
of the Act of 1989 and has to be contradistinguished from the gazetting of the
notification under Section 20A(1) of the
Act of 1989 and not confused with it.
Hence Section 20E(3) of the Act of 1989
also provides that the period will be
reckoned from the date of publication of
the notification. I find no force in the
contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that the publication of the
notification referred to Sub-section 3 of
Section 20E of the Act of 1989 pertains
to the gazetting of the notification with
reference to section 20A(1) of the Act of
1989 and not to publication thereof
under Section 20A(4) thereof. If the
notification under Section 20A of the Act
of 1989 were to be complete only on
being gazetted, there would be no
requirement in Sub-section 4 of Section
20A of the Act of 1989 of its publication.
In my considered view, the word
publication under Sub-section 3 of
Section 20E of the Act of 1989 refers to
the publication under Sub-Section 4 of
Section 20A of the Act of 1989.

9. In the aforesaid context, the
substance of the notification under
Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 having
been published on 21/22.06.2009 and the
declaration under Section 20E(1) having
been made on 23.01.2010 well within
one year, it is wholly valid, legal and
regular and no legal deficiency can be
attributed thereto. This view also finds
support in the judgment of the Gujarat
High Court in the case of Raghjibhai
(Supra). As far as the contention of the
counsel for the petitioner with regard to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dedicated Freight
Corridor Corporation of India (Supra) is
concerned, I am afraid that the said
judgment is of no succour to the
petitioner as the said judgment only
seeks to interpret Section 20E(1) of the
Act of 1989 with reference to the making
of an award under Section 20F(2) of the
Act of 1989 and has no manner of
concern or relation to the interpretation
of Section 20A(1) and Section 20A(4) of
the Act of 1989 juxtaposed to Section
20E(3) of the Act of 1989. The issue in
the present writ petition is totally foreign
to the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. "

24. Against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High
Court in Pushpa Devi's case (supra),
special appeal was filed before the
Division Bench and the Division Bench
dismissed the appeal by affirming the
view of the learned Single Judge in
Pushpa
Devi's
case
(supra).
The
judgment of the Division Bench dated
18th May, 2012 was in D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 566 of 2012. The
Division Bench after considering the
provisions of Sections 20A(1), 20A(4),
20E(1) and 20E(3) had laid down
following in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17:-

"15. A conjoint reading of subsections (2) to (4) of Section 20A makes
it clear that unless a notification, which
is issued under sub-section (1) gives a
brief description, as required under subsection (2) and unless the details thereof
is furnished to the competent authority,
as required under sub-section (3) and
unless the said notification is published
by the competent authority in two local
newspapers, one of which shall be in a
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
vernacular language, the proceedings
under Section 20A of the Act cannot be
said to be completed.