IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.7.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Writ Appeal Nos.1667 and 1668 of 2000 S.Pandiammal .. Appellant in W.A.No.1667 of 2000/ Petitioner in W.P.10450/92 T.Ranganayaki .. Appellant in W.A.No.1668 of 2000/ Petitioner in W.P.No.10451/92 vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme, Gundu Salai, Semmandalam, Cuddalore-1. .. Respondents in both the Writ Appeals/ Respondents in WPs Writ Appeal No.1667 of 2000 against the order dated 9.6.1999 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.10450 of 1992 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal No.1668 of 2000 against the order dated 9.6.1999 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.10451 of 1992 on the file of this Court. Writ Petition No.10450 of 1992 filed to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the sec 4(1) notification made in G.O.Ms.No.431 Housing and Urban Development dated 22.3.91 and published in the Tamil Nadu Govt.Gazette Part II Sec.2 dated 10.4.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.247, Housing and Urban Development Gazette in Part II Sec.2 dated 15.5.1992 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition No.10451 of 1992: filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari to calling for the records relating to the Section 4(1) Notification made in G.O.Ms.No.431 Housing and Urban Development dated 22.3.91 and published in the Tamil Nadu Govt.Gazette Part II Section 2 dated 10.4.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.247, Housing and Urban Development dated 14.5.1992 and published in the Tamil Nadu Govt.Gazette in part II Section 2 dated 15.5.92 and quash the same. For appellants : Mr.G.Devadoss For respondents: Mr.D.Srinivasan, Addl.G.P. JUDGMENT (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J) The appellant-writ petitioners are aggrieved by a part of the order of the learned single Judge, dated 9.6.1999 in Writ Petition Nos.10450 and 10451 of 1992, whereby their cases have been remitted for Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. As the cases can be disposed of on a short question, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. The State Government issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 22.3.1991, vide G.O.Ms.No.431, Housing and Urban Development Department, which was published in the Gazette on 10.4.1991; it was published in the local dailies — Dhina Thoothu and Dhina Puratchi on 26.4.1991; publication of the Notification in the locality was made on 22.5.1991; the Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 14.8.1991, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 14.5.1992, vide G.O.Ms.No.247, Housing and Urban Development Department, i.e. eight days before the expiry of one year from the date of issuance of the Notification in the locality, i.e. from 22.5.1991. The Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 15.5.1992, followed by the publication in the local dailies – Makkal Kural and Dhina Thoothu on 16.5.1992 and the publication of the Declaration was made in the locality on 19.5.1992. 4. The appellants (writ petitioners) preferred two separate Writ Petitions, challenging the common Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, and therein, interim order of stay was granted on 30.7.1992, due to which, no Award was passed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. By the impugned common order, dated 9.6.1999, both the Writ Petitions were partly allowed by the learned single Judge, declaring the Declaration issued Section 6 of the Act as illegal and set aside the same, thereby, remitted the matter for conducting fresh Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners submitted that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, having been published and the same having been Gazetted on 10.4.1991, the Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been issued within one year from the date of the publication of the Notification. If the period of the interim order of stay passed in the Writ Petitions is excluded, i.e. the period from 26.7.1992 to 9.6.1999, then in that case also, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been issued by 17.6.1999, i.e. the last date for expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this background, it is contended that the question of Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is uncalled for. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State has not disputed the facts as brought to the notice of the Court, but according to him, a fresh Notification can be issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was Gazetted on 10.4.1991. It was published in the dailies on 26.4.1991 and in the locality on 22.5.1991, thereby, within one year, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been made, which was made, but the same was set aside by this Court. Under the law, if the period of interim order is excluded, even then, by this time, it is not possible for the State to issue a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on the basis of the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. 10. The first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of "Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of T.N." reported in 2002 (3) SCC 533, wherein, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of providing the period of limitation under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act seems to be the avoidance of inconvenience to a person whose land is sought to be acquired. The language of Section 6(1) is plain and unambiguous and there is no scope for reading something into it. The prescription of time limit under the first proviso is peremptory and if the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act is quashed by the Court, a fresh Declaration must be issued within the same limitation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prescribed under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. 11. The case of the appellants being covered by the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in the said case, we hold that the respondents cannot also proceed further with the Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act for the purpose of issuance of Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the basis of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was Gazetted on 10.4.1991. 12. As 15 days' notice for Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was mandatory, with eight days prior to the completion of one year under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, it was not desirable for the learned single Judge to remit the matter for fresh Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 13. The prayer made in the Writ Petitions stands allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned order dated 9.6.1999 passed by the learned single Judge stands modified to the extent indicated above. However, this judgment shall not sand in the way of the authorities to issue fresh Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, if there is any public interest under the Act. 14. Both the Writ Appeals stand allowed with the aforesaid observations. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme, Gundu Salai, Semmandalam, Cuddalore-1. +1 cc to Mr.G.Devadoss, Advocate, SR.No.34455 Writ Appeal Nos.1667 and 1668 of 2000 RSI {CO} TP/3.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/