OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL versus THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 02-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL 
A 
V. 
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. ETC. 
AUGUST 2, 1995 
(AM. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Sections 4(1), SA and 6(1) (As amended by Act 84 of 1984)-Proviso-
Explanation 1. 
C 
Land Acquisition-Proceedings after the stage of Notification under 
Section 4( 1) quashed by High Cowt-Directions for fresh enquiry under 
section SA and for issue of declaration under section 6 after expiry of three 
years from the date of publication of Notification under section 4(1)-Held 
~~ 
D 
Section 6( 1)-Explanation-Notification under section 4( 1)-Limita-
tion period for declaration-Exclusion of period of stay order granted by 
Court-Stay order passed by a Minister cannot be taken into account-Peliod 
of stay granted for adjoining land under the same Notification cannot be E 
reckoned. 
In the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
for acquisition of appellant's land, a Notification under section 4(1) was 
published on 8.9.1982 while the declaration under section 6 was published 
on 15.2.1984. The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings and a 
F 
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the entire acquisition proceed· 
ings after the stage of section 4(1) Notification and directed that a fresh 
enquiry should be conducted under section SA and the declaration under 
section 6 shall be issued within six months from the date of the judgment 
and that the award shall be passed within four months thereafter. The G 
High Court also passed an interim order restraining the respondents from 
dispossessing the appellant. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that the 
directions given by the High Court were in conflict with the proviso to 
section 6 which provides that no declaration in respect of land covered by H 
461 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
a notification under section 4(1) shall be made after the expiry of three 
years from the date of the publication of the notification. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The directions given by the High Court are set aside. In 
B 
the present case the Notification under Section 4(1) was published before 
the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 but 
after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Valida-
tion) Ordinance 1967. In view of the proviso, the declaration cannot be 
made under Section 6 in respect of any .land covered by the said Notifica-
C tion after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the 
said Notification. [465-C-D] 
2. The appellant obtained stay from the High Court long after the 
expiry of the period of three years provided under the proviso to Section 
6. Even if one excludes the period during which the subsequent stay 
D operated, the issuance of a fresh declaration undet Section 6 would be 
clearly beyond the period of three years prescribed under the proviso to 
Section 6. Since the prohibition on issuance of a declaration under Section 
6 after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the 
Notification under Section 4(1) is absolute, the High Court could not have 
E given any direction permitting issuance of the declaration under Section 6 
within six months from the date of its judgment. [ 465-G-H; 466-A] 
3. A stay granted by the Minister fo.r Local Administration however, 
cannot be taken into account for the purposes of Explanation 1. The said 
Explanation requires that the order of stay should be passed by a court. 
F 
In any event a stay in respect of proceedings pertaining to an adjacent land 
cannot be availed of by the respondents in calculating the period of three 
years prescribed by proviso to Section 6. [ 466-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6697 of 
G 1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.94 of the Madras High 
Court in W.P.No. 4836 of 1987. 
A. Ganguli, R.Mohan, V. Balachandran, V. Ramasubramanian, V.G. 
H Pragasam and R. Nedumaran for the Appellants. 
OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL v. GOVf. OFT.N. [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.) 
463 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General and Ms. A. Subhashini for A 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted. 
B 
The appeal pertains to land admeasuring 1 ground and 1602 sq. ft. 
iri T.S.No. 3/1/part, Block No. 31, Mambalam Village, Madras owned by 
the appellant society. By a Notification dated 24.8.1982 is

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