-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 5312 of 1998 1. Shri Ashok Dyaneshwar Jachak 2. Shri Pandurang Dyaneshwar Jachak 3. Shri Parshuram Dyaneshwar Jachak 4. Shri Pratap Dyaneshwar Jachak 5. Shri Vishal Prakash Kalbhor 6. Shri Sunil Prakash Kalbhor (Minor) Guardian Shri Prakash Aknath Kalbhor 7. Vishal Prakash Kalbhor 8. Machindra Raosaheb Kalbhor 9. Shri Baban Laxman Thakar 10.Smt.Tulsabai Laxman Thakar 11.Shri Balasaheb Bapusaheb Kalbhor 12.Shri Bhimaji Anant Kalbhor 13.Shri Prashant Bhimaji Kalbhor 14.Shri Promod Bhimaji Kalbhor 15.Shri Sopan Shankar Jagtap 16.Smt.Sarubai Sakharam Raut 17.Shri Abdul Kadir Khan, Abdul Nasir Khan 18.Shri Abdul Majeed Khan Abdul Latif Khan 19. Shri Abdul Sattar Khan Abdul Nasir Khan 20. Shri Abdul Samead Khan Abdul Nasir Khan 21. Shri Abdul Nazir Khan Abdul Nazir Khan 22. Shri Abdul Gaffar Khan Abdul Latif Khan 23. Shri Abdul Jabbar Khan Abdul Latif Khan 24. Shri Abdul Gaffar Khan Abdul Nasir Khan 25. Smt.Malnabi ABdul Bashir Khan 26. Smt.Chandbi Abdul Rajak Khan 27. SMt.Zeorabi Abdul Rahimkhan 28.Smt.Kulsumbi Abdul Rashid Khan 29.Shri Abdul Bashir Khan Abdul Rahim Khan 30. Smt.Zubedabi Mehboob Khan 31. Smt.Zubedabi Mehboob Khan 32. Smt.Khurshid Banu Abdul Kadir Khan All Adults, Occ: Agriculture -2- all residing at Village Kadam Wak Vasti Taluka Haveli,Dist.Pune ..Petitioners vs. 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer No.14 Pune 2. The District Rehabilitation Officer, Pune 3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Bahrain Bahaman Ballard Estate, Bombay 400 001 Shri S.B.Deshmukh i/b Shri A.V.Anturkar for petitioners. Shri S.G.Page for respondent no.3. CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ 1st December,2004 1st December,2004 1st December,2004 ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per A.P.Shah J.) ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per A.P.Shah J.) ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per A.P.Shah J.) 1. Heard Advocates. 2. By this petition under Article 226, the petitioners are seeking to impugn Award (Part I) and Award (Part II) made by respondent no.1 dated 15th April, 1998 under the Land Acquisition Act. The lands of the petitioners are being acquired for public purpose of Bharat Petroleum Corporation’s Oil Depot. The only ground on which the the said awards are impugned is that the declaration under sec.6 was not made within the period of limitation of one year. -3- 3. The relevant dates and events as mentioned in the Award are as follows: (A) No. & Date of notification TPS-1895/1334/P.K. under section 4 of the 209/95/VV-13, dated Land Acquisition Act,1894 4.1.1996 by Govern- as provided under section ment in Urban Deve- 128 of the Maharashtra lopment Department Regional & Town Planning Mantralaya,Mumbai Act, 1966 Details of Publication of i) Maharashtra Govt. Notification Gazette, Part I, Pune Division Suppl- ment dated 25.01.1966 on page 166 ii) Daily "Sakal" dated 10.01.96 iii) Daily "Prabhat" dated 10.01.96 iv) On site on 16.02.1996 (A-1) Corringendum to the TPS-1895/1334/P.K. above Notification under 209/95-NV-13,dated Section 4 of the Land 26.4.1996 by Govt. Acquisition Act, 1894 in Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai Details of Publication of i) Maharashtra Govt. of the above Corringendum Gazette, Part I, Pune Division Suppl- ement dated 23.05. 1996 on page 755 ii) Daily "Kesari" dated 19.05.96 iii) Daily "Sandhya dated 18.05.96 iv) On site on 16.06.1996. (B) No.& Date of Second TPS-1895/1334/P.& K. Notification undern sec. 209/05-N.V.-13 dated 4 of the Land Acquisition dated 26.4.1996 by Act,1894 as provided under Government in Urban sec.128 of the Maharashtra Development Depart- Regional & Town Planning ment, Mantralaya, -4- Act, 1966. Mumbai. Details of Publication of i) Maharashtra Govt. above Notification Gazette, Part I, Pune Division Suppl- ment dated 23.05.1996 on page 755 and 756 ii) Daily "Kesari" dated 19.05.96 iii) Daily "Sandhya" dated 18.05.96 iv) On site on 01.06.1996 (C) No. & date of declaration TPS-1895/1318/P.K. under section 6 of the 209/95-NV-13 dated of the Land Acquisition 11.02.1997 by Govt. Act,1894 as provided under in Urban Development section 128 of the Department, Maharashtra Regional & Mantralaya, Mumbai Town Planning Act, 1966. Details of Publication of i) Maharashtra Govt. declaration Gazette, Part I,Pune Division Supplement dated 13-02-1997 on page 316 ii) Daily "Kesari" dated 15.02.97 iii) Daily "Loksatta dated 16.02.97 iv) On site on 14.02.97. (C-1) Corrigendum to the above TPS-1895/1334/P.K. Notification under sec.6 of 209/95-N.V.-13, the Land Acquisition Act,1894 dated 26.2.98 by Government in Urban Development Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai i) Maharashtra Govt Gazette, Part I,Pune Division Supplement dated 19.03.98 on page 680 ii) Daily "Kesari" dated 3.4.98 iii) Daily "Loksatta dated 3.4.98 iv)On site on 4.4.98 -5- 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that limitation of one year has to be counted from the date of publication of sec.4(1) notification in the official gazette and its publication in the newspaper and date of notification under sec.4(1) in the locality is not relevant for the purpose of computation of limitation. He submitted that the notification was published in the Govt. gazette on 25th January, 1996 whereas declaration under sec.6 was published in the Govt. gazette dated 11th February, 1997 and thus declaration was clearly beyond the period of one year. He submitted that in any event corrigendum to the notification under sec.6 was issued on 26th February, 1998 i.e. beyond one year and on this count also acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. 5. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The limitation for making declaration under sec.6 is prescribed by first proviso to sub-sec.(1) of sec.6. Before Amending Act 1967 there was no limitation prescribed for making the declaration. That Act prescribed a limitation of 3 years from the date of publication of sec.4 (1) notification -6- for making the declaration. The first proviso has been substituted by amending Act of 1984 and now prescribes a limitation of - (1) three years from the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) in cases where the notification was published between January 20, 1967 land September 24, 1984, and (ii) one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in cases where the notification was published after September 24, 1984. Starting of limitation is the date of publication of notification under sec.4(1), and the end point is the making, not the date of publication, of the declaration under sec.6. The date of publication of the notification under sec.4(1) is the last of the dates of publication in the gazette, publication in the newspapers and the giving of public notice. Whichever mode is last utilised the date on which this is done will be the date of publication of the notification. This is so provided in sec.4 itself. (See V.G.Ramachandran’s Law of Land Acquisition and Compensation, Eighth -7- Edition page 274). The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of computing the limitation, the publication of notification in locality as provided in the section has to be ignored is contrary to the express language of the statute. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of the plea of limitation heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and another Vs.l Makarland Singh and others; (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 497. We are afraid that this decision has no application to the point involved in this matter. There the question was whether the High Court was right in its conclusion that the declaration under Section 6 was published after 3 years and the last of the publications shall be the last date for the purpose of computing three years period envisaged in clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. This question was answered by a two Judges Bench holding that the period must be computed from the last date of publication of notification under sec.4(1) to the date of publication of declaration under sec.6 in the official gazette and not in the newspaper. -8- The Bench was not concerned with the question as to which publication of sec.4(1) notification should be treated as the publication for the purpose of limitation. We may hasten to add that the decision in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti’s case is no longer good law. In a subsequent judgment in the case of S.H.Rangappa Vs. State of Karanataka and another; (2002) 1 SCC 538, a 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court relying upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Khadim Hussain Vs. State of U.P.;(1976)1 SCC 843 held that the proviso to Section 6(1) which relates to the time limit for issuance of the notification under Section 6(1) cannot be read into sub-section (2) of Section 6. The words "publish" and "from the date of publication of the notification" occurring in proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) refer to the publication of Section 4 notification and have no reference to the publication of any notification under Section 6. Under Sec.6(1), it is only a declaration which is required to be made within the time limit being within one year of the publication of Section 4 notification, it is not the requirement that the declaration would have to be made within the time prescribed under the provisions to Section 6(1) but all other steps, like publication in the daily -9- newspaper and the Collector causing public notice of the declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality must also be completed within a period of one year of Section 4 notification. 7. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that in the instant case the declaration under sec.4(1) was made within one year. The argument that corrigendum to sec.6 notification was issued beyond the period of limitation is required to be stated only to be rejected. It is well settled that the corrigendum relates back to the date of notification and in any event the corrigendum which was issued on 19th March, 1998 merely mentions equivalent Gat Nos and it has no bearing as far as limitation is concerned. 8. In the result, for the foregoing discussion, the petition is dismissed with costs.