Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1154 (PNJ)

B. I. C. Limited v. State of Punjab

2000-09-22

M.L.SINGHAL, N.K.SUD

body2000
JUDGMENT N.K. Sud, J. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the notice dated 21.4.1999 (Annexure P-1) under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") and the consequent award dated 16.6.1999 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that in the absence of any award having been made within the statutory period of two years prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act, the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land of the petitioners had already lapsed. 2. The State of Punjab vide notification dated 5.7.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Act purported to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner situated at Madhopur Cantt., Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, for construction of Shahpur Kandi Hydel Channel. Objections under Section 5-A of the Act were duly invited from the persons interested in the aforesaid land and after hearing the objectors a declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been made giving the particulars of the land as required for the public purpose of constructing the Shahpur Kandi Hydel Channel. The declaration was published in the official gazette on 20.9.1996. According to the petitioner the award under section 11-A of the Act was required to be made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the official gazette i.e. 20.9.1996 and since no award had been made within the period of two years commencing from 20.9.1996 the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land stood lapsed. Thus, according to the petitioner, there were no acquisition proceedings pending either on 21.4.1999 when the impugned notice (Annexure P-1) was issued or on 16.6.1999 when the impugned award under Section 11-A of the Act (Annexure P-2) had been passed. 3. Notice of the petition was issued and written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the written statement, it has been pointed out that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been notified in the official gazette on 19.3.1997 and not on 20.9.1996 as alleged by the petitioner. It has been further stated that public notice of the substance of the declaration in the said locality had been got made by way of proclamation (Mushtri Munadi) by the Patwari on 24.6.1997 as was evident from relevant Rapat Roznamcha Vakyati. It has been further stated that public notice of the substance of the declaration in the said locality had been got made by way of proclamation (Mushtri Munadi) by the Patwari on 24.6.1997 as was evident from relevant Rapat Roznamcha Vakyati. It was, therefore, pointed out that the date of publication of declaration for the purpose of Section 11-A had to be treated as 24.6.1997 in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act and the period of two years had to be computed from that date. 4. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not controvert the fact of the publication of the substance of the declaration in the locality by way of proclamation on 24.6.1997. However, his case was that the period of two years as specified in Section 11-A of the Act had to be computed from the date of publication of the declaration in the official gazette. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2153.. (ii) State of U.P. and other v. Rajiv Gupta and another etc., 1994(5) SCC 686. (iii) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and another v. Makrand Singh and others, 1995(2) SCC 497. 5. On the other hand Sh. M.C. Berry, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab contended that in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act there could be no doubt that the period of two years had to be calculated from 24.6.1997 which was the last of the dates of publication and the giving of public notice. 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant provisions of law. The only issue for consideration is whether the period of two years specified in Section 11-A of the Act is to be computed from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 in the official gazette or from the date on which the public notice of the substance of the declaration had been caused in the locality being later in point of time. At the outset, we may notice the relevant provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 6 and Section 11-A of the Act which are reproduced below for the sake of the convenience : "Section 6. - (1) ... ... ... At the outset, we may notice the relevant provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 6 and Section 11-A of the Act which are reproduced below for the sake of the convenience : "Section 6. - (1) ... ... ... (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last dates of such public and the giving of such publication notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected." "Section 11-A. Period within which an award shall be made - The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse : Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation. - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded." 7. From a reading of Section 11-A it is clear that the period of two years has to be reckoned from the date of the publication of the declaration. Now the point for determination is as to what is the date of publication of the declaration. From a reading of Section 11-A it is clear that the period of two years has to be reckoned from the date of the publication of the declaration. Now the point for determination is as to what is the date of publication of the declaration. A plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act clearly shows that the following steps have to be taken in respect of a declaration under Section 6 : (i) it has to be published in the official gazette; (ii) it has to be published in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality; (iii) a public notice of the substance of such declaration has to given at convenient places in the locality. There is no requirement that the above three actions have to be taken simultaneously on any one day. These can be done one after the other. Sub- section (2) of Section 6 makes it abundantly clear that last of the dates on which the above mentioned three requirements are complied with shall be "hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration". In the present case the last date obviously is 24.6.1997 when public notice of the substance of the declaration had been given in the locality by way of proclamation (Mushtri Munadi) and therefore, this has to be treated as the date of the publication of the award for the purpose of computing the period of two years for making the award as prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act. 8. We may also deal with the three authorities of the Apex Court cited before us. According to us, none of these authorities are applicable to the case in hand. In Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliyas case (supra) there was no dispute about the date of publication of notification under Section 6 of the Act. In fact the parties in that case were agreed as far as the date of publication was concerned. The point at issue in that case was about the period which was sought to the excluded under the Explanation to Section 11-A of the Act. Similarly in Rajiv Guptas case (supra) also there was no dispute about the date of publication. The dispute related to the date of award under Section 11-A of the Act. The point at issue in that case was about the period which was sought to the excluded under the Explanation to Section 11-A of the Act. Similarly in Rajiv Guptas case (supra) also there was no dispute about the date of publication. The dispute related to the date of award under Section 11-A of the Act. The precise point at issue was whether the date of the proposed award could be said to be the date of the award under Section 11-A of the Act or not. Again in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samitis case (supra) the point at issue was whether for the purpose of clause (i) of the proviso to Section 6(1) the date of the publication was the date of publication in the official gazette or the last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice as specified in sub-section (2) of Section 6. The Supreme Court after taking note of the language of sub-section (2) specifically to the words "being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration" held that publication in the official gazette already made under clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section is complete as soon as the declaration under Section 6(1) was published in the official gazette. The further steps mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 6 were ministerial acts for the purpose of procedure "hereinafter" i.e. after the publication under Section 6(1) of the Act. In the present case there is no dispute that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act had been published in the official gazette within the period of 3 years from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 as prescribed under clause (i) of the proviso to that sub- section. Making of an award under Section 11-A of the act is indeed a ministerial Act which is to follow the publication for this purpose will have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion we hold that the date of publication of the declaration in the present case as per provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act was 24.6.1997 and the award made on 16.6.1999 was well within the period of two years prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act. Accordingly, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. Accordingly, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.