^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 4150 of 2007 Petitioner Respondents Dinesh Sadangi, Aged about - 44 years, S/o. Late Shri Bansidhar Sadangi, R/o. Gauri Shanker Mandir Road, Village - Kauhakunda, Tahsil & District - Raigarh (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Building, Raipur 2) The Collector, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (CG). 3) The S.D.0., Revenue, Raigarh, District Raigarh. 4) Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, through Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 5) The Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Raipur 6) The Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh /^ (Writ Petition Article under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 6th February, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the State t* Govemment published a notification on 21-1-2005, underthe provisions ofSub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act, 1894") for acquisition of land admeasuring 15.266 hectares in village Kauhakunda, Patwari Halka No.13, Tahsil and District Raigarh, for the purpose of construction of housing colony. Thereafter, a declaration under Section L - 2- 6(1) of the Act, 1894 was published on 25-2-2007. Learned counsel submits that no notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 can be published after expiry of one year period from the date of publication of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1894. After 24-9-1984, first proviso was substituted. 2) Section 6 (1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 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, sub-section (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 authorized 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 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made afterthe expiry ofthree years from the date of the publication of the notification, or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall been 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, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Explanation 1.- In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stay^d by an order of Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2.- Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues. (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 k -3- r.. 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 a manner hereinafter appearing." 3) Learned counsel next contends that the publication of declaration under Section 6 (1) ofthe Act, 1894 in the present case is admittedly, after a period of one year, contrary to the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act 1894. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the opposite side do not controvert the admitted dates of notification published under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 and dedaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1894. 5) On bare perusal of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the declaration published under Section 6 (1) ofthe Act, 1894, is contrary to the provisions and illegal and the same deserves to be quashed. Consequently, the publication of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 also deserves to be quashed. 6) It is well settled that questioning notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is maintainable in a writ jurisdiction. In State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar, this court had observed that civil suit was not maintainable and the remedy to question notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was by filing a writ petition. (See Ganpatibai and another Vs. State of M.P. and others ) ' (2006) 7 SCC 508 Ll- 7) In the matter of Eugenio Misquitta Vs. State of Goa , the Supreme Court, while considering the relevant dates for the purpose of limitation prescribed under Section 6(1) of the Act, observed as under: "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 limitationunder 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 3ection6(1)". 8) Applying well settled principle of law to the facts of the case, it is evident that the respondents-authorities published a notification under Section 4(1)0f the Act on 21-1-2005 (Annexure P/1) and thereafter declaration under Section 6 was published on 25-2-2007 (Annexure P/1-A). First proviso (ii) to Section 6 of the Act, 1894 Js crystal clear that no declaration under Section 4(1) of the Act shall be made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. The notification is clearly provided in the beginning of the proviso i.e., notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. In the present case, admittedly without any demur or objection raised by the respondents-authorities with regard to the dates, declaration under Section 6(1) was made after a period of more than two years. Thus, the entire proceedings for acquisition of land pursuant to the publication of notification dated 21-1-2005 (Annexure P/1) under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 and declaration dated 25-2-2007 under Section 6(1) ofthe Act, 1894, are quashed. 9) Accordingly, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (1997) 8 SCC 47