STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. versus ANTONY FERNANDEZ AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 865 · Decided: 12-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ANTONY FERNANDEZ AND ANR. 
· FEBRUARY 12, 1998 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
S. 4(1) and s. 6(1)-lssuance of mJtification u/s 6(1) after one year of 
publication of notification u!s 4(1)-Held, the order of the High Court that C 
possession should not be taken till inquiry uls 5A is held and objections are 
. considered, would amount to stay of further proceedings pursuant to s. 4(1) 
notification after s.5A inquiry-The period of stay to be excluded-Therefore, 
notification u/s 6(1) issued within the time prescribed. 
D 
Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka and Ors, (1994) 
4 SCC 145; Government of T.N and Another v. Vasanta Bai, [1995) Supp 
. 2 SCC 432; and Venkataswamappa v. Special Deputy Commissioner 
(Revenue), (1997] 9 sec 128, referred to. 
S. 5A-Hearing of objections-Opportunity of hearing to person E 
objecting to acquisition-Held, full opportunity was given to respondents to 
have their say in support of written objections and their counsel was heard. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 796of1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27 .11. 96 of the Kerala High Court F 
in W.A. No. 1760/96. 
P.S. Poti, and Ms. Malini Poduval for the Appellants. 
P. Krishoamurthy and M.P. Vinod for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal. 
A short question in this appeal that arises for consideration is as to H 
865 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] l S.C.R. 
A whetl1er the High Court in the impugned judgment was justified in quashing 
the notification under Section 6 of tlle Land Acquisition Act (hereinaft_g to 
be referred to as 'the Act) on two counts - (i) tllat it was issued beyond one 
year from tlle date of publication of Section 4 notification; and (ii) iliat enquiry 
under Section 5A of ilie Act was not conducted by the aufuorities before 
issuance of Section 6 notification. 
B 
So far as ilie first contention is concerned, learned senior counsel, Shri 
Poti, vehemently contended tl1at ilie said ground is not sustainable on tl1e 
facts of iliis case. He submitted tliat Section 4 notification was published on 
27th May 1993 while Section 6 notification was gazetted on 08th June 1994. 
Therefore, apparently it appeared to be beyond one year from the date of 
C publications of Section 4 notification. However, he invited our attention to an 
earlier decision in tl1is case of ilie High Court of Kerala in a writ petition 
numbered as O.P. No. 8235 of 1993-E. TI1e said writ petition was filed by ilie 
present respondents challenging Section 4 notification before tlle High Court 
at iliat stage. Their contention was iliat Section 4(1) notification should not 
D be followed by Section 6 notification wiiliout giving an opportunity to ilie 
respondents to have their say under Section SA of tlle Act. That writ petition 
was heard by Justice P.A. Mohammed in tl1e Kerala High Court on 2nd July 
1993 and was allowed. Learned Judge noted tl1at ilie writ petitioner, i.e, tl1e 
present respondent No. 2 had expressed her readiness to surrender the 
remaining portion of the land since she also preferred to have an Industrial 
E Training Institute in tlle locality and her claim for exemption of 55 cents of 
land just on ilie side of ilie road was required to be enquired into by t11e 
District Collector. This contention was accepted by tlle learned Judge by its 
judgment dated 02nd July 1993 and in tl1e penultimate paragraph of tlle said 
judgment learned judge directed that till final decision is taken in Ext. P.3 
F (written objections) ilie writ petitioner shall not be dispossessed from tlle 
disputed land. It was further pointed out by Shri Poti, learned senior counsel 
appearing for the appellants, that the final decision on the objections was 
taken by ilie auiliorities on 19tl1 January 1994 when tlle District collector 
forwarded the objections with recommendation to tlle Board of Revenue. 
Therefore, the period from 02nd July 1993 when tlle learned Single Judge 
G delivered the judgment till at least 18ili January 1994 amounting to almost six 
months ought to be excluded under fa.1Jlanation I to Section 6 of ilie Act (or 
r 
·--1., 
computing the period of one year for issuance of tl1e Section 6 notification. 
· 
Accordingly Section 6 notification can be said to be witltln time. E:\-planation 
I to Section 6

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