BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD versus STATE OF BIHAR AND.ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 05-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND.ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6(1) & (2) and J JA-
Publication .of declaration-Period of Limitation prescribed under Section 
A 
B 
I IA for the Award-Computation of-Held, the three modes of declaration 
envisaged under section 6(2) are cumulative and inseparable-Hence, the C 
period must be computed from the last date of the three modes of 
publication. 
A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
was issued and published in the District Gazette on 16.3.1989. The 
notification was subsequently published in two daily newspapers on D 
29.4.1989 and the local publication was made on 20.3.1989. The 
declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the District 
Gazette on l.2.1990, in the daily newspapers on 27.2.1990 and in the 
local publication on 15.3.1991. The award under the Act was made on 
2~11~2. 
E 
Respondent-landowner filed a Writ Application before the High 
Court on the ground that the award made on 25.3.1992 was invalid 
since it was made after two years from the date of the publication of 
the declaration in the daily newspapers on 27.2.1990. Single Judge 
allowed the Writ application which was affirmed by the Division Bench F 
of the High Court. The application for review by the appellant was 
dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the period 
of limitation under Section I IA of the Act has to be reckoned from the G 
last date out of the series of publications envisaged under the Section; 
and that the award was made within two years from tbe last date. 
The respondent-landowner contended that the date of local 
publication is of no consequence after the publication in the two local 
newspapers; that the local publication was made for the convenience H 
393 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A of the parties, whose lands were acquired; and that such local publication 
cannot extend the period of limitation envisaged under Section l lA of 
the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deals 
with the various modes of publication, as enjoined by the legislature 
and what is envisaged by the Statute is a co-joint publication, by all 
such methods. Various modes as prescribed in the provision itself are 
(a) publication in the Official Gazette, (b) publication in two daily 
C newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated of 
which at least one shall be in the regional language and (c) public notice 
of the substance of such declaration at convenient places in the locality. 
There is no option left with any one to give up or waive any or other 
of the modes and all such modes have to be strictly resorted to. 
D 
[399-B, CJ 
1.2. Section 6(2) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the last 
of the dates of the publication and giving of such public notice shall 
"hereinafter" be referred to as the date of publication of the declaration. 
Therefore, the expression "date of publication of declaration" appearing 
E in section 1 lA of the Act a stage subsequent to section 6, answering 
the stipulation "hereinafter" has to be the last of the dates out of the 
three modes of publication ordained by the Statute. In substance, the 
triumvirate modes are cumulative and inseparable in the sense that 
unless all the three modes are resorted to and completed, there is no 
scope for the limitation period of two years beginning to run or for the 
F penal consequences envisaged ensuing therefrom. [399-C-E) 
1.3. From the parenthesis appearing in Section 6(2), it is clear that 
reference to the subsequent provisions of the Act to the date of 
publication of declaration has to be determined as the last of the dates 
G of the publication and the giving of the notice. As the date of local 
publication was 15.3.1991, the award made on 25.3.1992 was not 
beyond the prescribed period of limitation. [399-G, HJ 
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti & Anr. v. Makrand Singh & Ors., 
[1995) 2 SCC 497 and Eugenia Misquita & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors., 
H [1997J s sec 47, relied on. 
BIHARSTATEHOUSINGBOARD v. STATE[PASAYAT,J.] 
395 
Ka/iyappan v. State of Kera/a & Ors., AIR (1989) SC 239, A 
distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7011 of 
2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.2001 of the Patna High Court B 
in C.R. No. 262 of 1999. 
Himan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.