S.H. RANGAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 03-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.H. RANGAPPA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 3, 2001 
[B.N. KIRPAL, N. $ANTOSH HEGDE AND P. VENKATARAMA 
B 
REDDI, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition : 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4( 1) and 6( 1) proviso-Acquisition 
C 
of land-For public purpose-Declaration-Issuance of-Limitation-Period 
of-Held: Declaration under S. 6( I) has to be made within one year of the 
publication of S. 4 not~fication-However, no time limit is prescribed under S~ 
6(2) within which s .. 6(1) declaration is to be published. 
Words and Phrases : 
D 
"Publish" and "from the date of publication of the not(fication"-
Meaning of-Jn the context of S. 6( 1) proviso (ii) of the land Acquisition Act, 
1894. 
The respondent-State issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 28-11-1987 wherein it was stated that the 
lands indicated in the Schedule thereto were intended to be acquired for 
the public purpose of construction of houses by the Housing Board. The 
notification was published in the newspaper on 23.2.1988. A declaration 
under Section 6(1) of the Act was made on 22.2.1989. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the 
validity of the notification under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that 
this notification. was barred by Ume. The High C~urt dismissed the writ 
petition. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the declaration~ 
which was issued under Section 6 of the Act, had to be published within 
one year of the publication of Section 4 notification. 
The following question arose before this Court : 
545 
E 
F 
G 
H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Whether the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
. Act; 1894 should be published within the period prescribed .by the proviso 
to Section 6(1) of the said Act? 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The words "publish" and "from the date of publication of 
the notification" occurring in proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 refer to the publication of the Section 4 notification 
and have no reference to the publication: of any notification under Section 
6. Under Section 6(1); it is only a declaration, which is required to be. made, 
the time limit being within one year of the publication of Section 4 
notification. [550-B] 
2. Section 6(2) of the Act does not prescribe any time limit within 
which the declaration made under Section 6(1) is to be published. The 
purpose of Section 6 notification being to give a final declaration with 
regard to the need of the land for public purpose, the interest of the hmd 
owners was sufficiently safeguarded with the requirement of the making of 
the declaration under Se"ction 6(1) within a prescribed period. It is difficult 
to read into Section 6(2) the provisions of the proviso to Section 6(1), which 
relate t~ the time Umit for issuance of the notification under Section 6(1). 
[550-D-E; G-H] . 
'Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P., (1976] 1 SCC 843, followed. 
' 
. 
. 
' 
-
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1962] Supp. 3 ,SCR 713, Krishi 
Utpadan Ma.ndi Samiti v. Makrand Singh, (1995] 2 SCC 497 and Eugenia 
Misquita v. State of Gqa, (1997]8 SCC 47, held inapplicabfo. 
Senjeeva Nagar Medical and Health Employees Co-operative Housing 
Society v. Mohd. Abdu[Bawanab, (1996] 3 SCC 600, held obiter. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7077 of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .9.97 of the Karnataka High Court 
in W.A. No. 8730 of 1996. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 7078 of 2001. · 
H 
G.L. Sanghi, R.S. Hegde, Sorniran Sharma, Prasha,nt Jain; P.P. Singh, 
S.H. RANGAPPA v. STATE [KIRPAL, J.] 
547 
Shantha Kumar Mahale, R.C. Kohli, P.V. Mahale, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Girish 
A 
Kumar, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Satya Mitra, Sanjay R. Hegde, Ms. Kiran Suri, 
N. Ganpathy and P.R. Ramasesh for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KIRPAL,J. 
B 
C.A. No. 7077 .of 2001 @ SLP (C) No. 22637 of 1997. 
Leave granted. 
Whether the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
C 
1894 (hereim~fter referred to as "the Act") should be published within the 
period prescribed by the proviso to Section 6(1) of the said Act, is the only 
question which arises for consideration in this case. 
The notification dated 29th November, 1987 was issued and published 
in the Official Gazette on 28thJanuary, 1988. The same was published in the 
.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.