PADMASUNDARA RAO (DEAD) AND ORS. versus STATE OF T.N. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 383 · Decided: 13-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PADMASUNDARA RAO (DEAD) AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF T.N. AND ORS. 
MARCH 13, 2002 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, 
RUMA PAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 6, Proviso to Section 6(1)-
Declaration-Previous declaration quashed by Court-Subsequent C 
declaratiort-Limitation for-Whether starts from the date of Notification uls 
4(1) or from the date of quashing or order-Held, limitation would start from 
the date of Notification and not from the date of order-Land Acquisition 
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967-Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 
1984. 
Interpretation of statutes-Court cannot read anything into a statutory 
provision which is plain and unambiguous-The legislative casus omissus 
cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process-Land Acquisition Act, 
1894-Section 6(1). 
Doctrines: 
Stare decisis-Applicability of when a judicial decision has been nulified 
by Judgment laying down law-Subsequent legislation. 
Ratio Decidendi-Applicability of-Courts not to place reliance thereon 
D 
E 
without considering the applicability of fact situation. 
F 
Notification u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued 
before the commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 but 
after the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967. 
Notification for declaration under Section 6(1) was issued and published in 
the Official Gazette within the period of three years prescribed under proviso G 
thereto. The same was quashed by High Court. Thereafter subsequent 
notification under Section 6 was issued. Appellants challenged the same on 
the ground that it was barred by limitation as the limitation for such 
notification was to be counted from the date of Notification under Section 
4(1). High Court relying on Narsimiah's case held that it was validly issued H 
383 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A as the limitation was to be counted from the date of order quashing the earlier 
notification under Section 6. Hence these appeals. 
B 
In view of difference of opinion o~ the question of limitation under 
Section 6 of the Act among the various Benches of this Court, the matter was 
referred to the present Constitution Bench. 
In A.S. Naidu's case and Oxford English School's case, the opinion was 
that limitation in such cases is to start from the date of notification under 
Section 4(1) of the Act, while in N. Narsimaiah's case and D.C. Nanjudaiah's 
case, the Court had opined that the limitation would start running from the 
c da~e of receipt of the order quashing the declaration and not from the date 
of original notification under Section 4(1). 
"" 
Appellants contended that plain reading of Section 6 shows that the 
declaration has to be issued within specified time, therefore, if opinion in 
Narsimaiah 's case is accepted, it would amount to legislation by the Court 
D which is not permitted. 
E 
Respondents contended that opinion in Narsi111aiah 's case was in line 
with the statutory intent, hence extension of time limit was permissible; that 
since K. Chinnathambi Gounder 's case had held the field since long, principle 
of Stare Decisis was applicable; and that since many acquisitions had become 
final and if matters were re-opened and different views taken, it would cause 
hardship. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. Once a.declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 has been quashed, fresh declaration under Section 6 cannot be issued 
beyond the prescribed period of the Notification under Section 4(1) of Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. (388-B-C; 394-H] 
A.S. Naidu and Ors. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. etc., (SLP (C) 
G Nos. 11353-11355/1988 and Oxford English School v. Government a/Tamil Nadu 
and Ors., (1995] 5 SCC 206, affirmed. 
1.2. It cannot be said that limitation of 3 years for publication of 
declaration would start running from the date of receipt of the order of the , 
High Court and not from t11e date on which the original publication under 
H Section 4(1) of the Act, came to be made. (388-C-D; 394-H; 395-A] 
PADMASUNDARARAOv. STATE 
385 
N. Narasimhaiah and Ors. v. Stale of Karna/aka and Ors. etc., [1996) 3 A 
~ 
SCC 88 and State of Karnataka and Ors. v. D.C. Nanjudiaiah and Ors., [19961 
10 sec 619, overruled. 
Director of Inspection of Income Tax (Investigation) New Delhi and Anr. 
v. Pooran Mal and Sons and Anr., (1975] 2 SCR 104; Commissioner of Income 
Tax, Central Calcu

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