http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 4065 of 1999

PETITIONER:

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur

RESPONDENT:

Bheru Lal & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/09/2002

BENCH:

M. B. SHAH & D. M. DHARMADHIKARI.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

WITH

CA Nos.4066-4104, 4106-4118 of 1999, CA Nos.858, 2603,

4344 of 2000, CA Nos. 2410, 5263 of 2001, CA

Nos._6060,6055,6059,6057,6062,6056,6058,6061/2002

arising out of SLP Nos.12817, 12822, 13826, 14907,

14909-12 of 2000 AND CA No. 6054/2002 arising out of

SLP No. 2436 OF 2002.

Shah, J.

Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made by the State

of Rajasthan on 21st Februry, 1990 for acquiring approximately 4800

bighas of land situated in Tehsil Girwa, district Udaipur as it was

required by Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Improvement Trust'), for the public purpose i.e. Udaipur

Bhuwana Extension Scheme, Udaipur. Bhuwana Extension Scheme

of the Improvement Trust is a residential scheme sub-serving the

objective of the planned development and utilization of the notified

land. The Improvement Trust, Udaipur was established under the

provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Development Act, 1959 for the

purpose of carrying out improvement and expansion etc. of urban area

of the city Udaipur. It provides for the acquisition of any land or

other property necessary for the execution of the Scheme.

Before the notification could be published in the official

gazette, the Gram Panchayat Bhuwana filed Civil Writ Petition

No.2255 of 1991 on 20.5.1991 challenging the notification dated 21st

February, 1990. In the said matter, writ petitioner prayed for interim

relief to the effect that the Improvement Trust should not make any

allotment to any person out of the land of Khasra Nos.2661, 2691 and

2835 of village Bhuwana and the notification be quashed. The High

Court passed the following interim order in the writ petition:

"Issue Notice.

Meanwhile the status quo as it exists today with respect

to the land in question will be maintained."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

That writ petition when came up for hearing on 28.10.1994,

was not pressed and was dismissed as withdrawn.

In these matters, following are the relevant dates on which

submissions are made:

Pending hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, notification

which was prepared on 21st February, 1990 was published on 31st

March, 1990 and Ist April, 1990 in the daily newspapers.

On 4.6.1992 notification under Section 4(1) dated

21.2.1990 was published in the official gazette.

On 13.11.1992, substance of the said notification under

Section 4 of the Act was affixed at the conspicuous places.

On 17/19.5.1993, substance of the said notification was

published in the local newspapers.

On 17.5.1994, the declaration under Section 6 (1) was made.

On 24.5.1994, the said declaration made under Section 6(1)

was published in the official gazette.

On 9/10.10.1994, the declaration under Section 6 (1)

was published in local newspapers.

Thereafter, in some of the matters, awards under Section 12 of

the Act were made and in some of the cases proceedings for making

awards were over but awards were not passed. In the meantime, in all

43 writ petitions were filed, out of which 11 were filed in the year

1995, 30 were filed in the year 1996 and 2 were filed in the year 1997

challenging the acquisition proceedings. Large number of other land

owners have not challenged the land acquisition proceedings.

The learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated

10.1.1997 in S.B. CWP No.469 of 1996 etc. dismissed all writ

petitions. Against that judgment and order, Civil Special Appeal

No.270 of 1997 etc. were preferred before the Division Bench of the

High Court. The High Court by impugned judgment and order dated

6th March, 1998 allowed the appeals and quashed the acquisition

proceedings including the awards etc. with a clarification that

judgment would not confer any benefit on any other person who was

not a party before the Court. The Court held that publication of

notices in the newspapers prior to 4.6.1992, which is the date of

publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, cannot be

considered for the purpose of determining the period of limitation for

declaration made under Section 6(1). The last date of publication of

the substance of notification under Section 4(1) was 19.5.1993 and as

the notification under Section 6 was published in the official gazette

on 24.5.1994, the same was beyond the period of one year and hence

all subsequent proceedings were void.

The aforesaid finding cannot be sustained in view of Sections 4

and 6 of the Act as well as the decision rendered by this Court in S.H.

Rangappa v. State of Karnataka and another [(2002) 1 SCC 538]

and Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P. and others [(1976) 1 SCC 843].

We would first refer to relevant ingredients of Section 4(1) of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

the Act, which are as under:

Whenever it appears to appropriate Government

that land in any locality is needed or likely to be needed

for the public purpose or for a company

(1) a notification to that effect shall be

published in the Official Gazette; and

(2) it is also required to be published in

(a) two daily newspapers circulating in that

locality, and

(b) the Collector is required to cause public

notice of the substance of such

notification at convenient places in the

locality;

(3) the last date of such publication and giving

such public notice is considered as "the date

of publication of the notification".

The publication of the notification made or prepared by the

Government would be of no effect till it is published in the Official

Gazette. That part of Section 4 is mandatory and is condition

precedent for initiation of Land Acquisition proceedings.

As against this, Section 6 inter alia provides that when the

appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if

any, made under Section 5A (2) that the land is needed for a public

purpose or for a company

(1) a declaration shall be made to that effect under the

signatures of a Secretary to such Government or of

some officer duly authorised to certify its order;

and,

(2) different declarations could be made from time to

time in respect of different parcels of any land

covered by the same notification under Section

4(1) of the Act.

(3) Further, under the Ist proviso to the said section, it

is inter alia provided that no declaration in respect

of a particular land covered by notification under

Section 4(1) shall be made after the expiry of one

year from "the date of publication of the

notification".

Sub-section (2) of Section 6 thereafter provides that every

such declaration is required to be published in the official gazette and

in two daily newspapers circulated in the locality and also the

Collector is required to cause public notice of the substance of such

declaration at the convenient places in the said locality.

From the different phraseology used in Sections 4(1) and 6(1),

it is apparent that under Section 4(1) publication in the official gazette

is a condition precedent for acquiring the land.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

As against this, Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate

Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public

purpose or for a company, a declaration is to be made to that effect

under the signature of the Secretary of such Government or of some

officer duly authorised to certify its order. Further, such declaration is

to be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of

the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, Section 6(1)

does not require that such declaration could not be published in the

official gazette after expiry of one year from the date of publication of

the notification under Section 4(1). Time limit of one year is

prescribed to a declaration to be made that land is needed for a public

purpose under the signature of a Secretary or authorised officer to

such Government.

In this view of the matter, in the present case, the relevant dates

for consideration would be 17/19.5.1993 when the substance of

the notification under Section 4 was published in the local newspapers

and 17.5.1994 which is the date on which declaration under Section 6

was made. The date 24.5.1994 when such declaration was published

in the official gazette is not required to be considered. The

notification under Section 6(1) is made within prescribed period.

Hence, the impugned order passed by the High Court considering the

relevant date as 24.5.1994 for setting at naught the land acquisition

proceeding cannot be justified.

Further, the aforesaid question is concluded by three Judge

Bench decision of this Court in S.H. Rangappa's case (supra),

wherein it is held that Sub-section (2) of Section 6 does not prescribe

any time limit within which the declaration made under Section 6(1)

is to be published in official gazette. The time limit being within one

year of the publication of Notification under Section 4 is only for the

declaration which is required to be made under Section 6(1) of the

Act. For this purpose, the Court referred to the earlier decision in

Khadim Hussain's case (supra). The same view is taken in the case

of Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod v. State of Maharashtra and others

[(2002) 1 SCC 689].

The learned senior counsel Mr. R.P. Bhatt appearing for the

respondents submitted that the notices which were published in the

daily newspapers on 31st March, 1990 and Ist April, 1990 are required

to be taken into consideration for computing the period of limitation

of one year for the purpose of making of declaration under Section

6(1). It is his contention that the notices were published in the daily

newspapers in March/April 1990 and, therefore, there was no question

of publishing the notices again in the newspapers on 17/19.5.1993.

Hence, subsequent publication of notices is required to be ignored.

In our view, the aforesaid submission is rightly rejected by the

High Court. It has to be stated that for the purpose of acquiring the

lands, publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the official

gazette is mandatory. If the decision taken by the Government to

acquire the land is not notified in the official gazette, the said decision

will be of no effect. As stated above, Section 4 of the Act mandates

that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land

in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public

purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be

published in the official gazette and acquisition process starts after

publication of the notification in the official gazette under Section

4(1). [Re: Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad and another v.

Raja Ram Jaiswal [(1985) 3 SCC 1] and State of Haryana and

another v. Raghubir Dayal [(1995) 1 SCC 133]. Therefore,

publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) being a condition

precedent for acquisition of land, said date is required to be taken into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

consideration for counting the period of limitation of one year and the

previous publication of notices in the newspapers were rightly ignored

by the High Court.

It is also contended by Mr. Bhatt, learned senior counsel that

taking 17th or 19th May as the date of publication of substance of the

Notification under Section 4 in the local newspapers, then there is

delay in its publication. Therefore also, the land acquisition

proceedings are required to be quashed.

It is apparent that the Notification under Section 4 was first

published in the official gazette in June 1992. Thereafter substance

was published in November 1992 at the conspicuous places and

subsequently it was published in the local newspapers. Considering

this sequence of publication, even if there is some delay, it would not

mean that on this ground the land acquisition proceedings under

Section 4 require to be set aside. Similar view is expressed by this

Court in State of Haryana and another v. Raghubir Dayal and

others [(1995) 1 SCC 133 para 7].

Further, learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that

on the ground of delay and laches in filing the writ petitions, the Court

ought to have dismissed the same. In the present case, as stated

above, the Notification under section 6 was published in the Official

Gazette on 24.5.1994. The writ petitions are virtually filed after two

years. In a case where land is needed for a public purpose, that too for

a scheme framed under the Urban Development Act, the Court ought

to have taken care in not entertaining the same on the ground of delay

as it is likely to cause serious prejudice to the persons for whose

benefit the Housing Scheme is framed under the Urban Development

Act and also in having planned development of the area. The law on

this point is well settled. [Re. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Zaver

Chand Popatlal Sumaria and others [(1996) 4 SCC 579] and Hari

Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others [(1984) 3 SCR 417].

In the result, the appeals filed by the Urban Improvement Trust

are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos.270-277/97 etc. allowing the

appeals and quashing the land acquisition proceedings is set aside.

The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is

restored.

Civil Appeal No.5263/2001 filed by J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. is

also dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.