STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus B.S. NANJUNDAIAH

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 11-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
B.S. NANJUNDAIAH 
JANUARY 11, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Sections 4(1 ), 5-A, 6 & 11-Notification-lssue of-Publication of 
declaration within three years from date of order of High Court-Hence S.11-
C 
A not attracted-Notification and declaration did not lapse. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2331of1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.91 of the Karoakata High 
Court in W.P. No. 9544 of 1986. 
K.H. Nobin Singh and M. Veerappa for the Appellants. 
Girish Ananthamurthy and K.K. Gupta for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
. . 
We have heard the counsel on both sides . 
D 
E 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of 
Karoatakamade on February 15, 1991 in W.P. No. 9544/86. Notification under 
F 
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was initially published on December 
6, 1973. The declaration under S.ection 6 was published on February 3, 1975. 
Writ petition No. 10402n7 was filed in the High Court challenging the 
notification under Section 4( I) and the declaration under Section 6 questioning 
the act of the Government in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. 
G 
The Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court on July 27, 1984 directing 
the appellant to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A from the stage where 
the objections were filed by the respondent. Thereafter, the copy of the record 
was received by the Land Acquisition Officer on January 19, 1985. Notice 
under Section 5-A was given on. February 20, 1985 and after giving 
379 
H 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1996] I S.C.R. 
A 
reasonable opportunity to the respondent, enquiry was concluded and the 
Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report to the Government on July 31, 
1985. The declaration under Section 6 was published on April 10, 1986. The 
respondent again filed the writ petition in the High Court on June 7, 1986 
challenging the validity of the notikarion under Section 4(1) and 
the 
B 
declaration under Section 6. 
The High Court in the impugned judgment has held that from 
December 6, 1973 till October II, 1977, there was no order of Court staying 
the proceedings by which date the three years' period prescribed under 
• -
Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had expired by efflux of time and 
C 
the declaration under Section 6 came to be published on April 10, 1986. 
Consequently, the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under 
Section 6 stood lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the Act, as amended 
by Act 68 of 1984. 
It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that the view of the 
D 
High Court is clearly illegal. In view of the fact that the notification under 
Section 6 was quashed giving liberty to the Government to proceed with the 
acquisition from that stage and consider the objections raised by the respond-
ent, the declaration under Section 6 came to be published within two years 
thereafter. Therefore, the declaration under Section 6 had not lapsed. Conse-
E 
quently section 11-A has no application. It is contended for the respondent that 
as pointed out by the High Court from 1973 to 1977, there was no impediment 
for the appellants to have the declaration published under Section 6 within 
• 
there years since the declaration was not published, the High Court was right 
in holding that the land acquisition proceedings shall stand lapsed. 
F 
Having considered the respective contentions, the question arises whether 
the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. It is true that from the date 
of the notification published Section 4(1) till October 11, 1977 there was no 
stay granted by the Court and the three years period had lapsed. But, 
unfortunately, the point was not convassed before the High Court iii the first 
G 
proceedings. Consequently, by operation of explanation (iv) to Section 11, it 
was open to the respondent to raise that contention. But since that point was 
not pressed for consideration by constructive res judicata, the question is no 
longer to be considered by the High Court. 
It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer received the record on 
H 
January 19, 1985. He issued the notice under Section 5-A to consider the 
STATE v. B.S. NANJUNDAIAH 
381 
objections filed by the respondent on February 20, 1995. Thereby there is 
a delay of one month between the date of receiving the 

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