Case: The Spl.Agr.Produce Market Commit. For Fruits And Vegetables Vs. N.Krishnappa

2. The controversy in these appeals relates to the acquisition of 42 acres 32 guntas of lands in village Golimangala, Sarjapur Hobli, Anchal Taluk, District Bangalore, for expansion of the Appellants marketing yard. Noticing infirmities in the acquisition proceedings, but declining to quash the acquisition adverting to the larger public purpose, the High Court shifted the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the date of its order i.e. 22.11.2010, for determination of compensation. Aggrieved by the order, both the Appellant and the landowners are in appeal before this Court.3. The statutory notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 20.5.2002 and the Award made on 31.01.2005. On a challenge to the acquisition proceedings by the landowners, the Learned Single Judge, after perusing the original acquisition records, held that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was made within statutory time from the last date of publication under Section 4(1) of the Act. But that the acquisition suffered from statutory non-compliance with regard to publication in two daily newspapers under Section 4(1) of the Act and improper consideration of the objections under Section 5A of the Act. Adverting to the public purpose of the acquisition, the proceedings were, however, declined interference and instead, the relief was moulded relying upon Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 477  , by shifting the date of the Section 4(1) Notification.4. Appeals were preferred both by the Landowners and the Appellant. The Division Bench summoned the original records afresh. It arrived at a finding at variance with the Learned Single Judge for reasons discussed in paragraph 40 of the Order that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was not within statutory time. But, declining interference with the acquisition proceedings, it concurred with the reasoning ascribed by the Learned Single Judge of the larger public importance of the acquisition.

Reasoning: 8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The original acquisition records had also been summoned by us. The observations of the Division Bench appear justified. But in the nature of the order passed, moulding the relief keeping in mind the larger public interest involved in the acquisition, and in view of Barangore Jute Factory (supra), we are not satisfied that the order of the High Court calls for interference.Since the contention with regard to the 2013 Act will require examination of facts with due opportunity, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the same in the present proceedings and leave it open for the aggrieved to pursue their remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum, if so advised.