LexEUGENIO MISQUITA AND ORS. versus STATE OF GOA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A EUGENIO MISQUITA AND ORS. v. ST A TE OF GOA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 29, 1997 B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Land Acquisition' Act, 1894 : Sections 4(1) and 6(/)(ii)-Declaration under-Limitation period-Computation of-Declaration made and published C in Official Gazette within one year of notification-Whether declaration is within limitation-Held, the dealaration is within limitation since the same was published in Official Gazette within one year. Section 6 (2), 1 IA-Modes of publication-Whether applicable for computing the period prescribed under section 6(/)(ii)-The declaration D under section (!)(ii) has nothing to do with the publication referred to in section 6(2) which is for reckoning the limitation prescribed under section II-A. Section-6, and proviso to section 6(/)(i)&(ii)-Making of Declaration- For the purpose of reckoning limitation-Completion of-Held, it is complete E when published in Official Gazette. Words and Phrases : 'Made' and 'hereinafter'meaning of A Notification under section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was published in Official Gazette on 6.8.92. Thereafter F declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 3.8.93 and the same was published in Official Gazette on 5.8.93. The public notice of the declaration was put on 28.8.93. The appellants challenged the validity of the declaration u/s. 6 on the ground that the declaration was barred by limitation that the declaration must G be taken to have been made/published for the purpose of proviso to section 6(1)(ii) on the date on which the last in the series of publications under section 6(2) was published i.e. on 28.8.93. The respondents contended that under section 6(1) the relevant date for the purpose of limitation was the date on which the declaration was made and the declaration having been made on 3.8.93 H was well within time from the date of publication of Notification U/s. 4(1) i.e. 362 EUGENIO MISQUITA. v. STATE 363 on 6.8.92. The High Court held that the Notification published in Official A Gazette on 6.8.92 which was the last publication and the declaration u/s. 6 having been made on 3.8.93 is within limitation of one year. In appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The declaration published under section 6 of the Act was B well within one year and challenge to the same has been rightly rejected by the High Court. The Notification was lastly published on 6.8.92 in the Official Gazette and declaration under section 6 was published in the Gazette on 5.8.93 which is well within one year. [376-G; 377-A) 1.2. The view taken in the judgment of the High Court under appeal C that the relevant date for reckoning the period oflimitation will be the date of making of the declaration under section 6 is not correct. Mere making of declaration is not enough. The making of declaration under section 6 is complete for the purpose of Proviso to section 6(1)(i) & (ii) when it is published in the Official Gazette. (375-H] D Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti & Anr. v. Makarand Singh & Ors., [19951 2 sec 497, relied on. 1.3. While Section 4(1) commands publication of Notification under that section, Section 6 speaks of the declaration being made to the effect that any particular land is needed for public purpose or for a company. But for the judicial decisions which have interpreted the word 'made' to mean 'published', the date of making of the declaration under section 6(1) will be the relevant date for reckoning the period oflimitation. Though the courts, in the interest E of general public have taken the view that declaration made will stand F accomplished only when it is published, this publication, has nothing to do with the publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the Act which is for a different purpose, inter alia, for reckoning the limitation prescribed under section 11-A of the Act. This construction is supported by the Language employed in section 6(2) of the Act. In particular, the word 'hereinafter' used G in section 6(2) will amply prove that the last of the series of the publication referred to under section 6(2) is relevant for the purposes coming thereafter, namely, for making award under section 11-A. The language employed in second proviso to section 6(1) also supports this construction. [369-B-E] Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Makarand Singh & Ors., [1995) 2 SCC H 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A 497, relied on · Lt. K. P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.