Case: N. Narasimhaiah &amp; Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Union of India &amp; Others

proceedings are taken. In that case proceedings were taken and order was made within one year, but without any notice to the assessee. The order was quashed. From the date of initial period of limitation the subsequent order was barred. It was contended that the action initiated under Section 132 was required to be done within the original period and an order made after expiry of the period, was invalid in law. This Court considered the contention and held that if the period of time prescribed under Section 132(5) is held to be mandatory, and if any direction was given by a Court in a writ proceedings, an order made in pursuance of such a direction would not be subject to limitation prescribed under Section 132(5). Even if the period of time fixed under Section 132(5) is held to be mandatory that requirement was satisfied when the first order was made. Thereafter, if any direction is given under Section 132(12) or by a court in writ proceedings, as in this case, it cannot be said that an order made in pursuance of such a direction would be subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 132(5). Once the order has been made within ninety days, the aggrieved person has got the right to approach the notified authority under Section 132(11) within thirty days and that authority can direct the Income-tax Officer to pass a fresh order. The contention that even such a fresh order should be passed within ninety days, would make the sub-sections (11) and (12) of Section 132 ridiculous and useless. It cannot be said that what the notified authority could direct under Section 132, could not be done by a High Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. To hold otherwise would make the powers of the Court under Article 226 wholly ineffective. The Court in exercising its powers under Article 226 has to mould the remedy to suit to the facts of a case. When Section 132(5) permits of Income-tax Officer to pass an order within ninety days that power cannot in any way be whittled down by a rule made under that section. 15. It is contended by Shri Naresh Kaushik that ratio as noted above was founded on concession and, therefore, the ratio would not be applied to the facts of this case. We are afraid, we cannot accept the contention. This Court had pointed out at page 111 at D that apart from the consent of the parties, even on point of law, that would be the result. Similar view was taken by a Full Bench of Madras High Court in K.C. Grounder & Anr. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1980 Madras 251. 16. We are of the opinion that running of the limitation should be counted from the date of the order of the court received by the Land Acquisition Officer and declaration is published within one year from that date. It would be consistent with the scheme of the Act and it would subserve the public purpose. Parliament amended the Act and prescribed limitation since the acquisition proceedings were unduly delayed for years and the owners of lands were put to hardship. If operation of limitation under clause [ii] of first proviso to Section 6(1) is not applied, we would come back to square and defeat the legislative purpose of limitation prescribed under the Act. The Government is bound under the order of the Court to hold an enquiry under Section 5A. Thereafter, if the Government still opines that the land is needed for publication purpose, declaration under Section 6 should be published within one year as indicated above. This interpretation would render judicial review efficacious and meaningful and public purpose subserved and the aggrieved owner would get an opportunity to vindicate his grievance. Thus, we hold that the limitation prescribed in clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section {1) of Section 6 would apply to publication of declaration under Section 6(1) afresh. If it is published within one year from the date of the receipt of the order of the Court by Land Acquisition Officer, declaration published under Section 6(1) would be valid. 17. The second contention that there would be two dates of notification under Section 4(1) as initially published and the one deemed to be published consequence to upholding of second declaration under Section 6(1) and that the compensation under Section 23(1) is required to be determined with reference to second date, is untenable. The declaration under Section 6(1) gives only conclusiveness to the public purpose specified in Section 4(1) and the notification under Section 4(1) still remains valid which is relevant for the purpose of computation of market value as envisaged under Section 23(1) of the Act. When the Court upholds the declaration it would relate back to the date of publication under Section 4(1) Therefore, there are no two dates for the purpose of computation of the market value as contended for the purpose of enquiry under Section 5A is to determine whether the land is needed for the public purpose and the affected owner or interested person gets a right to show that the public purpose mentioned in Section 4(1) is not the public purpose or some other land is more suitable or is available for the public purpose or his lands need to be excluded from public purpose as the proposed land may be in excess of requirement. Once the Government, after holding the enquiry has considered the objections and decided that the land is needed for public purpose, declaration published under Section 6 would become conclusive of the public purpose. Nonetheless, relevant date for Section 23(1) is the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). 18. Admittedly, in this case the second declaration was published within one year even from the date of the order passed by the High Court and, therefore, the view of the Division Bench is required to be upheld.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. The limitation, under the first proviso begins to run from the last of the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) is published. By operation of clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (1), the declaration under Section 6 shall be published within one year from the date of the last of the dates of the publication of the notification as required under Section 4(1) of the Act. Explanation I to Section 6(1) postulates that in computing the period 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 (1) is stayed by an order of the Court, the period during which the proceedings are pending, shall be excluded. In other words, before the declaration under Section 6 is published, if further proceedings are stayed by an order of the Court, further action stands interdicted, the running of limitation stops and the time occupied in the Court proceedings should be excluded in computation of the period of limitation mentioned in proviso to Section 6(1). After the said period is excluded and if the declaration published is within the limitation of one year, then necessarily the notification under Section 4(1) would remain valid.11. If that be the position, when the exercise of the power under Section 17(4) dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A is quashed by the Court and liberty is given to the State to proceed further in accordance with law, i.e., to conduct enquiry under Section 5A and even after conducting the enquiry as prescribed under Section 5A the Government forms opinion that the land was needed for public purpose and declaration was published, the question is: whetherthe limitation prescribed under clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) would still remain operative and be capable to be compliedHaving considered the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that if the construction as put up by the learned counsel for the appellants is given acceptance, i.e., it should be within one year from the last of the dates of publication under Section 4(1), the public purpose would always be frustrated. It may be illustrated thus: In a given case where the notification under Section 4(1) was published, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and declaration was published within one month and as the urgency in the opinion of the Government was such that it did not brook the delay of 30 days and immediate possession was necessary, but possession was not taken due to dilatory tactics of the interested person and Court ultimately finds after two years that the exercise of urgency power was not warranted and so it was neither valid nor proper and directed the Government to give an opportunity to the interested person and the State to conduct an enquiry under Section 5A, then the exercise of the power pursuant to the direction of the Court will be fruitless as it would take time to conduct enquiry. If the enquiry is dragged for obvious reasons, declaration under Section 6(1) cannot be published within the limitation from the original date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). A valid notification under Section 4(1) becomes invalid. On the other hand, after conducting enquiry as per Court order and, if the declaration under Section 6 is published within one year from the date of the receipt of the order passed by the High Court, the notification under Section 4(1) becomes valid since the action was done pursuant to the orders of the Court and compliance with the limitation prescribed in clauses (i) and (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of the Act would be made.13. It is true that this Court in OxfordSchools case (supra) in paragraph 7 had held that when declaration under Section 6 was quashed and the notification under Section 4(1) was upheld. the second declaration is required to be published within the same period prescribed in clause (i) of first proviso. In that case, the limitation of three years under clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section <1) could not be complied with. The notification under Section 4(1) was held to be invalid. Unfortunately, the above distinction was not brought to the notice of this Court when the case was considered and decided. Similarly, the ratio in P.Chinnannas case (supra) directly does not deal with the problem but observations in paragraph S do support the contention of the appellants as possession was not taken in these cases and the observations get attracted. But it was not necessary in that case to deal with that question since the possession under Section 17(2) was already taken and the land stood vested in the