URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, UDAIPUR versus BHERU LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 20-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, UDAIPUR 
v. 
BHERU LAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 
[M.13. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1) and 6(1)-declaration under 
Section 6(1)-Periad of limitation-DeclaraiiOn inade within one year from 
C publication of notification under Section 4(1)-Publication thereof beyond 
one year-whether within period of limitation-Publication of notification 
under section 4(1) in newspaper prior to publication in official gazette-
subsequent publication after publication in official gazel/e--Relevant date 
for computing limitation period of declaration under Section 6(/)-Held, 
notification under Section 6(1) is made within prescribed period-Publication 
D of notification under Section 4(1) in official gazette being condition precedent 
for acquisition of land, date of publication subsequent thereto is the relevant 
·date for computing period of limitation for declaration under Section 6(1). 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Land acquisition 
proceedings-Acquisition for housing scheme-Delay in filing writ petitions 
E challenging the proceedings-Held, Court should take care in not 
entertaining the petitions on the ground of delay as it is likely to cause 
serious prejudice to the persons for whose benefit the scheme was framed and 
in having planned development of the area-Laches. 
F 
In this appeal, land acquisition proceedings were challenged by way of 
writ petition before High Court, after about two years from the date of 
publication of notification under Section 6 in the official gazette. Single Judge 
of High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Division Bench of High Court 
allo~d the appeals and quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground 
that pbblication of notices in the newspapers prior to June 1992, the date of 
G publication of notification in the official gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act, 
cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the period of limitation 
for declaration made under Section 6(1 ); and that since the last date of 
publication of the substance of notification under Section 4(1) was 19.5.1993 
and as the notification under Section 6 was published in the official gazette 
on 24.5.1994, the same was beyond the period of one year and hence all 
H 
512 
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. BHERU LAL 
513 
subsequent proceedings were void. 
In appeal to this Court, respondents contended that the notices published 
in the daily n~wspaper in March/April, 1990 are required to be taken into 
consideration for computing the period of limitation of one year for the purpose 
A 
of making of declaration under Section 6(1), and subsequent publication of 
notices on 17 /19.5.1993 was required to be ignored. Appellant contended that, B 
on the ground of laches in filing the writ petitions, the Court ought to have 
dismissed the same. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I The finding of Division Bench of High Court cannot be C 
sustained in view of Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Declaration itnder Section 6(1) is to be made within a period of one year from 
the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act Section 
6(1) does not require that such declaration could not be published in the 
official gazette after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the D 
notification under Section 4(1). Time limit of one year is prescribed to a 
declaration to be made that land is needed for a public purpose under the 
signature of a Secretary or authorized officer to such Government. (518-E, Fl 
S.H. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka and Anr., (2002] I SCC 538; 
Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P. and Ors .. (19761 I SCC 843 and Sriniwas E 
Khatodv. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1200211SCC689, relied on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the relevant dates for consideration would be 
17119.5.1993 when the substance of the notification under Section 4 was 
published in the local newspapers and 17.5.1994 which is the date on which 
declaration under Section 6 was made. The date 24.5.1994 when such F 
declaration was published in the official gazette is not required to be 
considered. The notification under Section 6(1) is made within prescribed 
period. Hence the impugned order passed by the High Court considering 
relevant date as 24.5.1994 for setting at naught the land acquisition 
proceeding cannot be justified. (518-G, HJ 
2. I. The contention that the notices published in the daily newspa

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