of Karnataka & Ors Vs. B.S. Nanjundaiah
 INSC 46 (11
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (1) 631 1996 SCALE (1)625
O R D
have heard the counsel on both sides.
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Karnataka
made on February 15,
1991 in W.P.
No.9544/86. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was
initially c on December
6, 1973. The
declaration under Section 6 was published on February 3, 1975. Writ Petition No. 10402/77 was filed in High Court
challenging the notification under Section 4(1)and the declaration under
Section 6 questioning the act of the Government in dispensing with the enquiry
under Section 5-A.
Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court on July 27, 1984 directing the
appellant to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A from the stage where the
objections were filed by the respondent. Thereafter, the copy of the recite was
received by the Land Acquisition Officer of January 19, 1985. Notice under Section 5-A was given on February 20, 1985. and after giving reasonable
opportunity to the respondent, enquiry was concluded and the Land Acquisition
Officer, submitted his report to the Government on July 31, 1985, The respondent again filed the writ petition in the High
Court on June 7, 1986 challenging the validity of the
notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6.
High Court in the impugned judgment has held that from December 6, 1973 till October 11, 1977, there was on order of Court staying the proceedings by
which date the three year's period prescribed under Section 6(1) of time and
the declaration under Section 6 come to be published on April 10. 1986.
Consequently, the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under
Section 6 stood lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the Act, amended by Act
68 of 1984.
contended by the counsel for the appellants that the view of the high court is
clearly illegal. In view of the fact that the notification under Section 6 was
quashed giving liberty the Government to proceed with the acquisition from that
stage and consider the objections raised by the respondent, the declaration
under Section 6 came to be published within two years thereafter. Therefore,
the declaration under Section 6 had not lapsed.
section 11-A has no application. it is contended for the respondent that as
pointed out by the High Court from 1973 to 1977, there was no impediment for
the appellants to have the declaration published under Section 6 within three
years since the declaration was not published, the High Court was fight in
holding that the land acquisition proceedings shall stand lapsed.
considered the respective contentions, the question arises whether the view
taken by the High Court is correct in law. It is true that from the date of the
notification published under Section 4(1) till October 11, 1977 there was no stay granted by the Court and the three years
period had lapsed. But, unfortunately, the point was not convassed before the
High Court in the first proceedings. Consequently, by operation of explanation
(iv) to Section 11,it was open to the respondent to raise that contention. But
since that point was not pressed for consideration by constructive res judicata,
the question is no longer to be considered by the High Court.
seen that the Land Acquisition Officer received the record on January 19, 1985. He issued the notice under Section
5-A to consider the objections filed by the respondent on February 20, 1995. Thereby there is a delay of one
month between the date of receiving the record and the date of issuing the
notice. Thereafter the proceedings went on from time to time at the instance of
arguments were concluded on July 31, 1985.
the limitation, again begin to run from August 1, 1985. The declaration was published on April 10,1986. therefore, the declaration, after
the order was set aside, in the proceedings of the first writ petition was
published within three years from the date of the order. By operation of Clause
(1) of section 6 the declaration has been published within three years from the
date of the order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the operation of
section 11-A is not attracted to the facts of this case. As a result, neither
the notification under Section 6 shall stand lapsed. The appellants are
directed to conduct and conclude the award enquiry as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt
of this order.
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2