KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI AND ANR. versus MAKRAND SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 01-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MAKRAND SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
~ 
DECEMBER 1, 1994. 
[K. RAMASWAMY AN]) N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act. 1894 : 
Sections- 4 (1), 6 (1) and (2), 11 and 11-A-Three years limitation 
period prescribed in clause (i) of the proviso to S. 6 (1) Publications in c 
Gazette newspapers and local publication-Date to be taken for computing 
the limitation period-Held: Date of declaration published in the Gazette 
would be date for such computation. 
~ 
Certain lands were notified and published in the State Gazette on 
February 19, 1982 for acquisition to establish Model Market Yard of D 
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kaimganj. The declaration under s 6 (1) 
was published in the Gazette on February 7, 1985, in the newspapers on 
June 4, 1987 and the substance in the locality subsequent thereto. The 
respondents who owned about 1 acre and odd land have challenged the 
validity of the declaration on the grouJJ.d that it was published after the 
expiry of three years. That contention was found favour with the High . E 
Court and it had allowed the writ petitions~ Hence these appeals. 
Allowing the appeals , this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court, was not right in its conclusion that 
since declaration was published in the newspapers on June 4, 1987, F 
after the expiry of three years, the dec,aration under s. 6 (1) and the 
,;;.· 
notification, under s. 4 (1) stood lapsed. It is clearly illegal. [260 B) 
2. It would be seen that the purpose of notification under s. 4 (1) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an intimation to the owner or person 
having an interest in the land that government exercised the power of G 
eminent domain in relation to his land and for public purpose his land 
is needed or likely to be needed; puts an embargo on his freedom to 
· deal with the land as an unencumbered land and also pegs the price of 
the land prevailing as on that date. It also ls a caveat to the Collector to 
make the award under s. 11 as well as to determine the market value 
prevailing as on the last of the dates to be the date and the award H 
255 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
. 256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
should be made within a period prescribed bys. 11-A. Lest the entire 
acquisition shall stand lapsed. The word 'hereinafter' is for such 
purpose as well as for the purpose of determination of the 
compensation under Chapter III of the Act as well. Therefore, the word 
"hereinafter" referred to as the last date of the publication of the 
notification is the date from which the prevailing prices of the land is to 
he computed etc. [258 G, H, 259 A, BJ 
3. The last date under s. 6 (2) shall be the date for the purposes 
"hereinafter referred to" would be not for computing the period of 
three years prescribed in clause (i) of proviso to s. 6 (1) of the Act as it 
was already done, but for purposes to be followed hereinafter. 
Otherwise language would have been "hereinbefore done". Sub-s. (2) as 
such did not prescribe any limitation within which the declaration 
under s. 6 (1) or other steps hereinafter to be taken, in other words, the 
steps to be taken thereafter in making the award under s. 11 or in 
computation of the period prescribed in s. llA. The publication of the 
declaration in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality 
one of which in the regional language and the publi~tion of the 
substance of the declaration in the locality are ministerial acts and is a 
procedural part. It appears that these publications are required to be 
done to make the declaration published in the manner, to be conclusive 
evidence of the public purpose under s. 6 (1) and also to provide 
limitation to make the award under s. 11 by the Collector. If this 
consistent policy of the Act is understood giving teeth to the operational 
efficacy to the scheme of the Act and public purpose the Act seeks to 
serve, this Court is of the considered view that publication in the 
official gazette already made under Clause (1) of proviso to sub-section 
(1) of s. 6 is complete, as soon as the declaration under s. 6. (1) was 
published in the official gazette. That will be the date for the purpose of 
computation of three years period from the last of the. dates . of the 
publication of the notification under s. 4 (1). [259 D to G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1995 
Etc. 
[From the Judgment and Order dated 22.l.91 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C. M.W.P. 

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