Case: Urban Improvement Trust,Udaipur Vs. Bheru Lal

2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act was made by the State of Rajasthan on 21st February, 1990 for acquiring approximately 4800 bighas of land situated in Tehsil Girwa, district Udaipur as it was required by Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Improvement Trust, for the public purpose i.e. Udaipur Bhuwana Extension Scheme, Udaipur. Bhuwana Extension Scheme of the Improvement Trust is a residential scheme sub-serving the objective of the planned development and utilization of the notified land. The Improvement Trust, Udaipur was established under the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Development Act, 1959 for the purpose of carrying out improvement and expansion etc. of urban area of the city Udaipur. It provides for the acquisition of any land or other property necessary for the execution of the Scheme3. Before the notification could be published in the official gazette, the Gram Panchayat Bhuwana filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2255 of 1991 on 20.5.1991 challenging the notification dated 21st February, 1990. In the said matter, writ petitioner prayed for interim relief to the effect that the Improvement Trust should not make any allotment to any person out of the land of Khasra Nos. 2661, 2691 and 2835 of village Bhuwana and the notification be quashed. The High Court passed the following interim order in the writ petition:Meanwhile the status quo as it exists today with respect to the land in question will be maintained4. That writ petition when came up for hearing on 2.10.1994, was not pressed and was dismissed as withdrawn5. In these matters, following are the relevant dates on which submissions are made:Pending hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, notification which was prepared on 21st February, 1990 was published on 31st March, 1990 and 1st April, 1990 in the daily newspapersOn 4.6.1992 notification under Section 4(1) dated 21.2.1990 was published in the official gazetteOn 13.11.1992, substance of the said notification under Section 4 of the Act was affixed at the conspicuous placesOn 17/19.5.1993, substance of the said notification was published in the local newspapersOn 17.5.1994, the declaration under Section 6(1) was madeOn 24.5.1994, the said declaration made under Section 6(1) was published in the official gazetteOn 9/10.10.1994, the declaration under Section 6(1) was published in local newspapers6. Thereafter, in some of the matters awards under Section 12 of the Act were made and in some of the cases proceedings for making awards were over but awards were not passed. In the meantime, in all 43 writ petitions were filed, out of which 11 were filed in the year 1995, 30 were filed in the year 1996 and 2 were filed in the year 1997 challenging the acquisition proceedings. Large number of other land owners have not challenged the land acquisition proceedings7. The learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 10.1.1997 in S.B. CWP No. 469 of 1996 etc. dismissed all writ petitions. Against the judgment and order Civil Special Appeal No. 270 of 1997 etc. were preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court by impugned judgment and order dated 6th March, 1998 allowed the appeals and quashed the acquisition proceedings including the awards etc. with a clarification that judgment would not confer any benefit on any other person who was not a party before the Court. The Court held that publication of notices in the newspapers prior to 4.6.1992, which is the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the period of limitation for declaration made under Section 6(1). The last date of publication of the substance of notification under Section 4(1) was 19.5.1993 and as the notification under Section 6 was published in the official gazette on 24.5.1994, the same was beyond the period of one year and hence all subsequent proceedings were void.

Reasoning:
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.