N. NARASIMHAIAH AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 17-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
N. NARASIMHAIAH AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
UNION OF iNDIA AND ORS. 
B 
JANUARY 17, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA ANDS. B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
C 
Sections 4(1), 5-A, 6(1), 17, 23(1}-Limitation of one year prescribed 
in clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (1) of S.6-Would apply to 
publication of declaration under S.6(1} afresh-Declaration published within 
one year from date of receipt of order of Court by Land Acquisition Of-
fice,-ff eld valid-After enquiry and considering objections, Government 
deciding the land is needed for public purpose, declaration published under 
D S.6 would become conclusive of the public purpose-Nonetheless, relevant 
date for S.23(1) is the date of publication of notification under S.4(1). 
Oxford English School v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [1995) 
5 SCC 206; P. Chinnanna & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1994) 5 SCC 486; 
E Director of Income- tax, New Delhi & Anr. v. Pooran Mal and Sons & Anr., 
[1975) 2 SCR 104 and KC. Gounder & Anr. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 
AIR (1980) Madras 251, referred to. 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2635-42 
of 1996 Etc. 
' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15/22.4.93 of the Karnataka 
High Court in W .A. Nos. 17655-62 of 1989. 
Rama Jois, P.R. Ramasesh, Naresh Kaushik and Lalitha Kaushik for 
the Appellants. 
K.N. Shulda, Y.P. Mahajan, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and M. Veerappa for 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
Leave granted. 
698 
( 
\ 
; 
y 
• 
r 
N. NARASIMHAIAHv. STATE U.0.1. 
699 
Notification under Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act ( l of A 
1894) (for short, "the Act") acquiring total extent of 114 acres of land in 
Narayanpura Village in Bangalore District, Karnataka was published for 
public purpose, viz., Defence Research & Development Organisation, 
Government of India. The Government, exercising the power under Sec-
tion 17( 4), dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and the B 
notification under Section 4(1) was accordingly published on January 22, 
1987. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 was published on June 
24, 1987. 
The appellants had challenged the exercise of emergency power 
under Section 17(4) by filing W.P. No. 13316-20/1987 and batch in the High C 
Court of Karnataka and the learned single Judge quashed the.order of the 
Government dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A and directed as 
under: 
"In the result these petitions are partly allowed and the declaration D 
dated 24.6.1987 published in the Gazette dated 6.8.1987 made 
under Section 6(2) of the Act read with Section 17(1) of the Act 
as also that portion of the Preliminary Notification under Section 
4( 1) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of 
the Act in so far as the petitioners lands are concerned and also 
the notice under Section 9(1) of the Act dated 12.8.1987 are 
E 
quashed reserving liberty for the authorities to continue the ac-
quisition proceedings from the stage of preliminary notification. 
The petitioners shall file their objections against the preliminary 
notification within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order 
and they shall file their objections against the preliminary notifica-
F 
lion within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and they 
shall present themselves before the Land Acquisition Officer - 3rd 
respondent on 15.7.1988 without awaiting any fresh notices from 
the said officer. The Land Acquisition Officer shall hold the 
enquiry under Section 5A of the Act expeditiously and complete G 
the proceedings in accordance with law." 
Thereafter, enquiry under Section 5A was conducted and declaration 
thereof was published on May 13, 1989. The validity of this declaration was 
again questioned in present Writ Petition No. 19245/89 and baich. The 
learned single Judge again allowed the writ petitions. The Division Bench H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A by Judgment dated April 22, 1993 in Writ Appeal No. 2189-97 of 1992 and 
batch allowed the appeals; set aside the order of the learned single judge 
and consequently upheld the declaration published under Section 6 of the 
Act. 
B 
The learned single .Judge had quashed the notification in the first 
instance giving liberty to the Government to conduct an enquiry under 
Section 5A and it was accordingly completed within one year from the date 
of the judgment. Declaration under Secti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.