A
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
v.
D.C. NANJUDAIAH AND ORS.
AUGUST 26, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Sections 4( 1 ), 5A.6--High Court holding that enquiry under S.SA not
C properly conducted-Quashing notification under S.4( 1 )-On appeal held,
inquiry under S.SA was found fault with and it required to be quashe~resh
enquiry under S.5-A to be conducted-Limitation of conducting the enquiry
and publication of the declaration within three years would start from date of
receipt of High Cowt's order and not from the date on which the origi,nal
publication under S.4(.1) came to be made-State pennitted to conduct
D enquiry within four months and declaration to be published one month
thereafter.
N. Narasimhaiah v. State of Kamataka, [1996) 3 SCC 88, relied on.
CIVIL APPELL.ATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.11874-75
E
of 1996.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.91 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.P. Nos. 19348-49 of 1981.
M. Veerappa for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Though the respondents have been served, no one is appearing eith.er
in person or through counsel.
G
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
.
The controversy rnised in this case is covered by the judgment of this
Court in N. Narasimhal'ah v. State of Kamataka, [1996] 3 SCC 88. The
H admitted facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisi-
222
STATE OFKARNATAKAv. D.C. NANJUUAIAH
223
tion Act, 1894 was published on August 26, 1982 and enquiry under Section A
5-A was conducted thereafter. But before the receipt of the report from
the Land Acquisition Officer, the declaration under Section 6 was publish-
ed on June 24, 1985 within three years. Two writ petitions were filed on
December 10, 1985 challenging the notification under Section 4(1) and the
declaration under Section 6. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and
quashed the notification under Section 4( 1) and declaration under Section
6 by the impugned judgment dated February 26, 1991 made in Writ Petition
Nos. 19348 and 19349 of 1985. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
B
It is seen that the declaration under Section 6 was published within
three years from the date of the notification under Section. 4(1) as upheld C
by the High Court. But the High Court noted that the enquiry under
Section 5-A was not properly conducted. The declaration under Section 6
dated June 24, 1985 quashed since the notification under Section 4(1) was
dated August 26, 1982 and the declaration could not be published within
three years even after excluding the period of pendency of the writ petitions
under proviso to Section 6 of the Act. Thus, the notification under Section D
4(1) was quashed. We find no justification for the view taken by the High
Court. It is seen that declaration under Section 6 was published, as held
by the High Court, within three years, but the conduct of the enquiry under
Section 5-A was found fault with and it requires to be quashed. If it is
quashed necessarily an enquiry under Section 5-A has to be conducted.
The limitation, therefore, of conducting the enquiry and publication of the
declaration within three years would start running from the date of the
receipt of the order of the High Court and not from the date on which the
original publication under Section 4(1) came to be made. This view was
laid by this Court in Narasimiah's case (supra). For the same ratio, the
appeals are to be allowed and the declaration has to be quashed. Accord-
ingly the declaration is quashed. The appellant is permitted to conduct an
enquiry within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this
order and have the declaration published within one month thereafter.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeals allowed.
E
F
G
Lex