Case: ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

the appeal filed by the Respondents, this Court declined to interfere with the direction given by the High Court. In the second round of acquisition, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.01.1997 and the writ petition was filed within one month and 11 days thereafter. Therefore, the Division Bench was clearly wrong in holding that the Appellant was guilty of laches. 17. The issue needs to be examined from another angle. A person who is deprived of his land can challenge the acquisition proceedings at various stages. He can question the notification issued u/s 4(1) on the ground of violation of the mandate contained therein like publication of the notification in the official gazette and/or two newspapers including the one in the regional language, failure of the Collector to cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. He can challenge the declaration issued u/s 6(1) on the ground of non-compliance of Section 5A(1) and/or (2) or violation of proviso (ii) to Section 6(1). In a given case, the land owner can also challenge the notice issued u/s 9 and the award passed u/s 11 on the ground that he had not been heard or that the acquisition proceedings are nullity. He can also challenge the award if it is not made within the period prescribed u/s 11 A. The vesting of land in the Government can be challenged on the ground that the possession had not been taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The invoking of urgency clause contained in Section 17 can be questioned on the ground that there was no real urgency. There may be many more grounds on which the land owner can challenge the acquisition proceedings. Insofar as the Appellant is concerned, he had challenged the acquisition proceedings immediately after passing of the award and pleaded that the declaration issued u/s 6(1) was liable to be declared nullity because of violation of the time limit prescribed in proviso (ii). This being the position, it is not possible to approve the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition was belated. 18. The finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the land had vested in the Government and, therefore, it was not open to the Appellant to challenge the same is also erroneous. Admittedly, possession of the Appellants land was taken u/s 35 which empowers the Government to temporarily occupy waste or arable land for a period of three years. For the sake of reference, that section is reproduced below: 35. Temporary occupation of waste or arable land, procedure when difference as to compensation exists: (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] that the temporary occupation and use of any waste or arable land are needed for any public purpose, or for a company, the appropriate Government may direct the Collector to procure the occupation and use of the same for such terms as it shall think fit, not exceeding three years from commencement of such occupation. (2) The Collector shall thereupon give notice in writing to the persons interested in such land of the purpose for which the same is needed, and shall, for the occupation and use thereof, for such term as aforesaid, and for the materials (if any) to be taken there from, pay to them such compensation, either in a gross sum of money, or by monthly or other periodical payments, as shall be agreed upon in writing between him and such persons respectively. (3) In case the Collector and the persons interested differ as to the sufficiency of the compensation or apportionment thereof, the Collector shall refer such difference to the decision of the Court. 19. The use of the expression not exceeding three years from commencement of such occupation leaves no manner of doubt that with effect from 31.1.1979 i.e. the date on which three years period counted from 01.02.1976 ended, continued occupation of the Appellants land by the Respondents became illegal per se. 20. We may now advert to the main question as to whether the declaration issued u/s 6(1) was nullity because the same was issued after expiry of the period of one year specified in proviso (ii) to that Section. This issue is no longer res integral and must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in Padmasundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and a recent judgment in Devender Kumar Tyagi and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 164. In Padma Sundara Raos case (supra), the Constitution Bench unequivocally held that the second proviso to Section 6(1) is mandatory and a declaration issued beyond the period of one year from the last publication of the notification issued u/s 4(1) is nullity. In view of the proposition laid down in these judgments, it must be held that the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the declaration issued u/s 6(1) was non-est. 21. Learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon corrigendum dated 01.07.1994 and argued that if the period of one year is counted from the date of corrigendum then the declaration issued u/s 6(1) cannot be treated as beyond the period of one year. We are unable to accept the submission of Learned Counsel for two reasons. Firstly, it has not been shown whether the corrigendum had been published in the manner prescribed u/s 4(1). Secondly, the corrigendum was issued only for correcting the typographical mistakes in the gazette publication of the notification issued u/s 4(1). Such corrigendum will relate back to the date on which notification u/s 4(1) was issued and the same cannot be relied upon for recording a finding that the declaration u/s 6(1) was issued within the period prescribed under proviso (ii) to that Section 22.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]14. Since the parties have not placed on record copies of notification dated 01.01.1993 issued u/s 4(1) and order dated 06.04.1993 to which reference has been made in the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in CWJC No. 10621 of 1992, we do not consider it necessary to examine in detail whether there was any real public purpose for the acquisition of the Appellants land after the State Government is said to have been taken a decision to shift the office of the Sone Embankment Division to the Government premises at Maner.In this context, it is apposite to observe that the farmers of the Constitution have not prescribed any period within which a petition can be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in the last six decades, the superior Courts have evolved several rules of self imposed restraint which are required to be kept in view by the High Courts while exercising power under Article 226. One of these rules is that the High Court will not come to the aid of a person who approaches the Court with delay and no explanation is offered for the same - State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai and Others, and Tilokchand and Motichand and Others Vs. H.B. Munshi and Another, . In the first of two cases, the Constitution Bench observed that even though no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court will come to the rescue of only those who are vigilant and a petition filed after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing a suit will not be entertained unless cogent explanation is offered for the same. In the second case, Hidayatullah, Chief Justice who concurred with R.S. Bachawat and G.K. Mitter, JJ. expressed the view that there is no upper or lower limit for filing a writ petition and each case has to be decided on its own facts. The learned Chief Justice further observed that even if the petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a suit, the Court may entertain the petition provided that the Petitioner gives satisfactory explanation or may decline relief in a case where the petition is filed within limitation but the explanation for the delay is not satisfactory.16. The factual matrix of this case shows that from 1992, the Appellant has been prosecuting his cause for securing possession of the land. He succeeded in that venture when the writ petition filed by him was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court and in the appeal filed by the Respondents, this Court declined to interfere with the direction given by the High Court. In the second round of acquisition, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.01.1997 and the writ petition was filed within one month and 11 days thereafter. Therefore, the Division Bench was clearly wrong in holding that the Appellant was guilty of laches.17. The issue needs to be examined from another angle. A person who is deprived of his land can challenge the acquisition proceedings at various stages. He can question the notification issued u/s 4(1) on the ground of violation of the mandate contained therein like publication of the notification in the official gazette and/or two newspapers including the one in the regional language, failure of the Collector to cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. He can challenge the declaration issued u/s 6(1) on the ground of non-compliance of Section 5A(1) and/or (2) or violation of proviso (ii) to Section 6(1). In a given case, the land owner can also challenge the notice issued u/s 9 and the award passed u/s 11 on the ground that he had not been heard or that the acquisition proceedings are nullity. He can also challenge the award if it is not made within the period prescribed u/s 11 A. The vesting of land in the Government can be challenged on the ground that the possession had not been taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The invoking of urgency clause contained in Section 17 can be questioned on the ground that there was no real urgency. There may be many more grounds on which the land owner can challenge the acquisition proceedings. Insofar as the Appellant is concerned, he had challenged the acquisition proceedings immediately after passing of the award and pleaded that the declaration issued u/s 6(1) was liable to be declared nullity because of violation of the time limit prescribed in proviso (ii). This being the position, it is not possible to approve the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition was belated.18. The finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the land had vested in the Government and, therefore, it was not open to the Appellant to challenge the same is also erroneous. Admittedly, possession of the Appellants land was taken u/s 35 which empowers the Government to temporarily occupy waste or arable land for a period of three years.19. The use of the expression not exceeding three years from commencement of such occupation leaves no manner of doubt that with effect from 31.1.1979 i.e. the date on which three years period counted from 01.02.1976 ended, continued occupation of the Appellants land by the Respondents became illegal per se.This issue is no longer res integral and must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in Padmasundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and a recent judgment in Devender Kumar Tyagi and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 164.  In Padma Sundara Raos case (supra), the Constitution Bench unequivocally held that the second proviso to Section 6(1) is mandatory and a declaration issued beyond the period of one year from the last publication of the notification issued u/s 4(1) is nullity. In view of the proposition laid down in these judgments, it must be held that the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the declaration issued u/s 6(1) was non-est.We are unable to accept the submission of Learned Counsel for two reasons. Firstly, it has not been shown whether the corrigendum had been published in the manner prescribed u/s 4(1). Secondly, the corrigendum was issued only for correcting the typographical mistakes in the gazette publication of the notification issued u/s 4(1). Such corrigendum will relate back to the date on which notification u/s 4(1) was issued and the same cannot be relied upon for recording a finding that the declaration u/s 6(1) was issued within the period prescribed under proviso (ii) to that Section 22.