Case: Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi Vs. Munna Lal Aggarwal and Others

1. Delay condoned. Special leave is granted. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. The dispute is narrow. Land acquisition proceedings were undertaken at the behest of Jhansi Development Authority, the appellant herein. Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (as amended) was issued on 6-12-1985. As required by the said provision all modes of publication were resorted to. According to the appellants the local publication in the locality was made on 28-6-1986. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23-7-1987 within a period of one year from the last publication of 26-6-1986. The High Court allowed the writ petition of the affected right-holders/respondents on the basis that since notification under Section 4 had officially been issued on 6-12-1985, the period of one year when computed therefrom had already elapsed and therefore notification under Section 6 issued on 23-7-1978 was ineffective. It appears that the High Court overlooked the bracketed portion occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 4. For purpose of reference, we reproduce sub-section (1) of Section 4 :- "Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon. - (1) 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 in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification 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 notification)." * 3. As is evident, the bracketed portion ordains that the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of public notice is, in the eye of law, the date of publication of notification. Sequelly the period of limitation of one year for the purposes of Section 6 is to be computed from the date of the last publication, which by itself is the date of the publication of the notification. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute either factually or legally this proposition. However, it is asserted by her that Section 4 does not lay down the priorities in which modes of publication have to follow in order. She has even suggested that there is conflict of authority on the question between the Allahabad High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. We would have, if necessary, gone on to resolve the controversy, if there be any, if the High Court had been called upon to examine it. Since the High Court has overlooked the factual as well as legal aspect of the case as afore-indicated, we would refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion thereon as to whether resolution of the suggested conflict is necessary or not, and would rather leave it to the High Court to opine on the matter afresh.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]3. As is evident, the bracketed portion ordains that the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of public notice is, in the eye of law, the date of publication of notification. Sequelly the period of limitation of one year for the purposes of Section 6 is to be computed from the date of the last publication, which by itself is the date of the publication of the notification. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute either factually or legally this proposition. However, it is asserted by her that Section 4 does not lay down the priorities in which modes of publication have to follow in order. She has even suggested that there is conflict of authority on the question between the Allahabad High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. We would have, if necessary, gone on to resolve the controversy, if there be any, if the High Court had been called upon to examine it. Since the High Court has overlooked the factual as well as legal aspect of the case aswe would refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion thereon as to whether resolution of the suggested conflict is necessary or not, and would rather leave it to the High Court to opine on the matter afresh.