Case: Urban Improvement Trust,Udaipur Vs. Bheru Lal

14. As against this, Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, a declaration is to be made to that effect under the signature of the Secretary of such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its order. Further, such declaration is to be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, Section 6(1) does not require that such declaration could not be published in the official gazette after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Time limit of one year is prescribed to a declaration to be made the land is needed for a public purpose under the signature of a Secretary or authorised officer to such Government. 15. In this view of the matter, in the present case, the relevant dates for consideration would be 17/19.5.1993 when the substance of the notification under Section 14 was published in the local newspapers and 17.5.1994 which is the date on which declaration under Section 6 was made. The date 24.5.1994 when such declaration was published in the official gazette is not required to be considered. The notification under Section 6(1) is made within prescribed period. Hence, the impugned order passed by the High Court considering the relevant date as 24.5.1994 for setting at naught the land acquisition proceeding cannot be justified. 16. Further, the aforesaid question is concluded by three Judge Bench decision of this Court in S.H. Rangappas case (supra), wherein it is held that Sub-section (2) of Section 6 does not prescribe any time limit within which the declaration made under Section 6(1) is to be published in official gazette. The time limit being within one year of the publication of Notification under Section 4 is only for the declaration which is required to be made under Section 6(1) of the Act. For this purpose, the Court referred to the earlier decision in Khadim Hussains case (supra). The same view is taken in the case of Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2002) 1 SCC 689] . 17. The learned senior counsel Mr. R.P. Bhatt appearing for the respondents submitted that the notices which were published in the daily newspapers on 31st March, 1990 and 1st April, 1990 are required to be taken into consideration for computing the period of limitation of one year for the purpose of making of declaration under Section 6(1). It is his contention that the notices were published in the daily newspapers in March/April 1990 and, therefore, there was no question of publishing the notices again in the newspapers on 17/19.5.1993. Hence, subsequent publication of notices is required to be ignored. 18. In our view, the aforesaid submission is rightly rejected by the High Court. It has to be stated that for the purpose of acquiring the lands, publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the official gazette in mandatory. If the decision taken by the Government to acquire the land is not notified in the official gazette, the said decision will be of no effect. As stated above, Section 4 of the Act mandates that - 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 acquisition process starts after publication of the notification in the official gazette under Section 4(1) [Re: Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad and another vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal [(1985) 3 SCC 1] and State of Haryana and another vs. Raghubir Dayal [(1995) 1 SCC 133] . Therefore, publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) being a condition precedent for acquisition of land, said date is required to be taken into consideration for counting the period of limitation of one year and the previous publication of notices in the newspapers were rightly ignored by the High Court. 19. It is also contended by Mr. Bhatt, learned senior counsel that taking 17th or 19th May as the date of publication of substance of the Notification under Section 4 in the local newspapers, then there is delay in its publication. Therefore, also, the land acquisition proceedings are required to be quashed. 20. It is apparent that the Notification under Section 4 was first published in the official gazette in June 1992. Thereafter substance was published in November 1992 at the conspicuous places and subsequently it was published in the local newspapers. Considering this sequence of publication, even if there is some delay, it would not mean that on this ground the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4 require to be set aside. Similar view is expressed by this Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Raghubir Dayal and others [(1995) 1 SCC 133 para 7]. 21. Further, learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that on the ground of delay and laches in filing the writ petitions, the Court ought to have dismissed the same. In the present case, as stated above, the Notification under section 6 was published in the Official Gazette on 24.5.1994. The writ petitions are virtually filed after two years. In a case where land is needed for a public purpose, that too for a scheme framed under the Urban Development Act, the Court ought to have taken care in not entertaining the same on the ground of delay as it is likely to cause serious prejudice to the persons for whose benefit the Housing Scheme is framed under the Urban Development Act and also in having planned development of the area. The law on this point is well settled. [Re: Reliance Petroleum Ltd. vs. Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumaria and others [(1996) 4 SCC 579] and Hari Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others [(1984) 3 SCR 417] .

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

Explanation:
1[ds]14. As against this, Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, a declaration is to be made to that effect under the signature of the Secretary of such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its order. Further, such declaration is to be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, Section 6(1) does not require that such declaration could not be published in the official gazette after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Time limit of one year is prescribed to a declaration to be made the land is needed for a public purpose under the signature of a Secretary or authorised officer to such Government18. In our view, the aforesaid submission is rightly rejected by the High Court. It has to be stated that for the purpose of acquiring the lands, publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the official gazette in mandatory. If the decision taken by the Government to acquire the land is not notified in the official gazette, the said decision will be of no effect. As stated above, Section 4 of the Act mandates that - 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 acquisition process starts after publication of the notification in the official gazette under Section 4(1) [Re: Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad and another vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal [(1985) 3 SCC 1] and State of Haryana and another vs. Raghubir Dayal [(1995) 1 SCC 133] . Therefore, publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) being a condition precedent for acquisition of land, said date is required to be taken into consideration for counting the period of limitation of one year and the previous publication of notices in the newspapers were rightly ignored by the High Court20. It is apparent that the Notification under Section 4 was first published in the official gazette in June 1992. Thereafter substance was published in November 1992 at the conspicuous places and subsequently it was published in the local newspapers. Considering this sequence of publication, even if there is some delay, it would not mean that on this ground the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4 require to be set aside.