Allowed

Sukumar M. Khot and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2007WP/6827/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a fresh declaration under s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act made after a previous declaration was quashed by this Court. The Court held the second declaration is invalid due to the expiry of the statutory time limit as clarified by the Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao, and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the second declaration under Section 6; Rule made absolute.

Sukumar M. Khot and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6827 OF2006

¶4

 1.
 Sukumar M. Khot
 Age 43 years,
 Occ : Agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 2.
 Shivaji Bhimrao Patil
 Age 45 years,
 Occ : Agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.

¶5

 3.
 Shri. Dyandeo Hari Mane
 Age 55 years,
 Occ : service,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.

¶6

 4.
 Shri. Sudhakar Balaso Wani
 Age 37 years,
 Occ : Agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.

¶7

 5.
 Asharath Vithu Patil
 Age 70 years,
 Occ : Agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.

¶8

 6.
 Shri. Kerba Hari Mane,
 Age 40 years,
 Occ : Agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,

¶9

:2:

¶10

 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 7.
 Shri. Rahul Dyandeo Mane,
 Age 18 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Age 70 years,
 Occ : Agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 8.
 Shri. Baburao Tukaram Mane,
 Age 18 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Age 70 years,
 Occ : Agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 9.
 Shri. Pandurang Tukaram Mane,
 Age 50 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 10.
 Shri. Mahadeo Tukaram Mane,
 Age 47 years,
 Occ : service,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 11.
 Shri. Nivrutti Dattu Mane,
 Age about 60 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.

¶11

 12.
 Shri. Shamrao Dattu Mane,
 Age about 55 years,
 Occ : agriculture,

¶12

:3:

¶13

 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 13.
 Shri. Bhimrao Dattu Mane,
 Age about 47 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 14.
 Shri. Ramu Laxman Ghugare,
 Age about 58 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 15.
 Shri. Dhondiba Shiva Ghugare,
 Age 66 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 16.
 Shri. Vilas Sakharam Ghugare,
 Age 47 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 17.
 Shri. Shamrao Nagoji Sabale,
 Age about 70 years,
 Occ : Sheti,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 18.
 Shri. Rajaram Pandurang Sabale,
 Age about 50 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,

¶14

:4:

¶15

 District Kolhapur.
 19.
 Shri. Dyanu Dattu Daware,
 Age about 67 years,
 Occ agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,District Kolhapur.
 20.
 Shri. Tumaram Dattu Daware,
 Age about 64 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 21.
 Shri. Shankar Dattu Daware,
 Age about 60 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 22.
 Shri. Santosh Shankar Khot,
 Age about 25 years,
 Occ : service,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 23.
 Shri. Dundappa Balaso Wani,
 Age about 33 years,
 Occ : service,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 24.
 Shri. Sanjay Balaso Wani,
 Age about 30 years,
 Occ : service,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 25.
 Parvati Shivling Wani,

¶16

:5:

¶17

 Age about 75 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 26.
 Ananda Rau Daware,
 Age about 52 years,
 Occ : service,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 27.
 Shri. Rangrao Rama Patil,
 Age about 65 eyars,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 28.
 Shri. Rajaram Shankar Patil,
 Age about 45 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 29.
 Shri. Pandurang Govind Patil,
 Age about 66 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 30.
 Shri. Vilas Shankar Patil,
 Age about 50 eyars,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 31.
 Smt. Malubai Shrikant Patil,
 Age about 48 years, Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,

¶18

:6:

¶19

 District Kolhapur.
 32.
 Shri.Bapu Sambhaji Bhosale,
 Age about 55 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,District Kolhapur.
 33.
 Shri. Vikas Bapu Bhosale,
 Age about 40 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 34.
 Shri. Jambuwant Bhau Satpute,
 Age about 55 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 35.
 Shri. Gundu Raghu Patil,
 Age about 67 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 36.
 Shri. Bhimrao Laxman Patil,
 Age about 70 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 37.
 Shri. Namdeo Sakharam Mane,
 Age about 65 years, Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 38.
 Smt. Laxmibai Shankar Patil,

¶20

:7:

¶21

 Age about 75 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 39.
 Shri. Vitthal Tukaram Supale,
 Age about 26 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal, District Kolhapur.
 40.
 Shri. Bhairu Dattu Supale,
 Age about 55 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 41.
 Shri. Shivaji Dattu Supale,
 Age about 45 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 42.
 Shri. Sadashiv Dhondiba Supale,
 Age about 52 years, Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,District Kolhapur.
 43.
 Shri. Dadu Dhondiba Supale,
 Age about 48 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 44.
 Shri. Baburao Dhondiba Supale,
 Age about 45 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 45.

¶22

:8:

¶23

 Shri. Dilip Pandurang Bhosale,
 Age about 23 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 46.
 Shri. Balaso Rajaram Bhosale,
 Age about 35 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal, District Kolhapur.
 47.
 Shri. Nandkumar Rajaram Bhosale,
 Age about 32 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 48.
 Shri. Babu Hari Torse,
 Age about 42 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 49.
 Shri. Ananda Hari Torse,
 Age about 40 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 50.
 Shri. Maruti Hari Torse,
 Age about 65 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 51.
 Sharubai Tukaram Torse
 Age about 65 years,

¶24

:9:

¶25

 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 52.
 Shri. Babu Vithu Kumbhar,
 Age about 55 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur
 53.
 Shri. Pandurang Tukaram Korane,
 Age about 38 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 54.
 Shri. Raghunath Tumaram Korane,
 Age about 28 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 55.
 Shri. Maruti Rama Khot
 Age about 62 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 56.
 Shri. Bhairu Amba Killedar,
 Age about 50 years,
 Occ : service,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 57.
 Shri. Balu Gopal Kudale,
 Age about 52 years,

¶26

 :10:

¶27

 Occ : service,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 58.
 Shri. Dyandeo Gopala Kudale,
 Age about 48 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal, District Kolhapur.
 59.
 Shri. Pandurang Bhau Khot,
 Age about 58 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 60.
 Shri. Babu Bhau Khot,
 Age about 52 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 61.
 Shri. Shahaji Tukaram Khot,
 Age about 20 years, Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 62.
 Shri. Shivaji Tukaram Khot,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 63.
 Shri. Shankar Laxman Khot,
 Age about 48 years,
 Occ : service,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,

¶28

 :11:

¶29

 District Kolhapur.
 64.
 Shri. Aannaso Dadu Khot,
 Age about 40 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 65.
 Hirabai Mahadeo Kumbhar,
 Age about 60 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.

¶30

 66.
 Shri. Maruti Appa Supale,
 Age 60 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 67.
 Shri. Pandurang Appa Supale,
 Age about 55 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 68.
 Shri. Chandrakant Dattatray Potdar
 Age about 32 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 69.
 Sou. Sugandha Appaso Kumbhar,
 Age about 50 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,

¶31

 :12:

¶32

 District Kolhapur.
 70.
 Sharabai Bapu Kumbhar,
 Age about 45 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 71.
 Shri. Shankar Hari More,
 Age about 60 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 72.
 Shri. Ananda Nana Parale,
 Age about 60 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 73.
 Shri. Ramchandra Yasaba Narwekar,
 Age about 58 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 74.
 Shri. Maruti Rama Khot,
 Age about 52 years,
 Occ : agriculture,
 Residing at :- Kolge,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur.
 Petitioner No.. 5 to
 Petitioner No. 74
 through Power of Attorney Holder
 namely Petitioners No. 1 to 4 herein. PETITIONERS

¶33

 VERSUS

¶34

 :13:

¶35

 1. State of Maharashtra
 [Summons to be served on the Learned
 Government Pleader appearing for
 State of Maharashtra under order XXVII,
 Rule 4, of the Code of Civil
 Procedure, 1908].
 2. The Divisional Commissioner ,
 Pune Division,
 Pune.
 [Summons to be served on the Learned
 Government Pleader appearing for
 State of Maharashtra under order XXVII,
 Rule 4, of the Code of Civil
 Procedure, 1908].
 3. Sub Division Officer
 Karveer Sub Division,
 Kolhapur.
 [Summons to be served on the Learned
 Government Pleader appearing for
 State of Maharashtra under order XXVII,
 Rule 4, of the Code of Civil
 Procedure, 1908].
 4.Shri. Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal
 Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,
 At Post Sadashivnagar,
 Hamidwada,
 Tal : Kagal,
 District Kolhapur. RESPONDENTS

¶36

 Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the
 Petitioners.

¶37

 Mr.R.D.Rane, Addl. Government Pleader for
 Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶38

 Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdhar, Senior Advocate with Mr.H.V.Kode
 with Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.4.

¶39

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND
S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ.
DATED : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2007

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per F.I. Rebello, J.)

¶41

 :14:

¶42

 Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶43

 2. The Petitioners are owners of lands in respect
 of which proceedings for acquisition were initiated
 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
 referred to as the Act).

¶44

 The Petitioners had earlier moved this Court by
 a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No.6022 of
 2005, challenging the declaration made under section
 6, dated 23.6.2005 which was published on 22.8.2005.
 A learned bench of this Court by an order dated
 21.3.2006 set aside the declaration under section 6
 of the Land Acquisition Act for the area of 54
 hectares and 16.30 ares and remitted the matter to
 the land acquisition officer for fresh inquiry in
 terms of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶45

 3. Pursuant to those directions, a notice was
 issued to the Petitioners for an inquiry to be
 conducted under section 5A of the Land Acquisition
 Act, read with the rules framed by the State of
 Maharashtra.

¶46

 Subsequent to the notice and after giving a

¶47

 :15:

¶48

 hearing to the Petitioner, the Appropriate
 Government has been pleased to issue a fresh
 declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition
 Act, dated 10.8.2006. The notification recites that
 the report of the officer competent to send report
 as per section 5(2) has been considered and it is
 necessary to acquire lands for the public purpose at
 the cost of the Government.

¶49

 4. We may point out that the notification under

¶50

 section 4, was issued on 20.9.2004 and the
 declaration under Section 6 was made on 23.6.2005,
 within the time prescribed by section 6 of the Land
 Acquisition Act. The petition was filed on
 25.9.2006 and the judgment of this Court came to be
 delivered on March 21, 2006. The effect of the
 judgment was that the declaration under section 6
 was quashed and set aside and the matter was
 remitted back to the Collector for completing the
 inquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act
 in terms of directions issued in the judgment. The
 State Government was directed on receiving the
 report of the Collector and his recommendations to
 the objections, to take recourse to its powers in
 accordance with law.

¶51

 :16:

¶52

 5. The Petitioner by the present petition, impugnes
 the fresh declaration. Various grounds have been
 urged. At the hearing of the petition before us, it
 was submitted that it was not open to the
 Appropriate Government to have made the declaration,
 as the time for making the declaration under section
 6 had already expired.

¶53

 The learned counsel placed reliance on the
 judgment of the Apex Court in Padma Sundara Rao
(Dead) & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.,
(2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 533. There are some
 other contentions which, in our opinion, considering
 the order we intend to pass, need not be dealt with.

¶54

 On the other hand, on behalf of the Respondents,
 the learned counsel submitted, placing reliance on a
 Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in K.
Chinnathambi Gounder & Anr. v. Government of Tamil
Nadu & Anr., AIR 1980, Madras, 251 and the judgment
 of the Division Bench of this Court in Anna Shankar
Walvekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1997(1)
Maharashtra Law Journal, 470, that the prescribed
 period under section 6 is only in respect of the
 first declaration and not in the event subsequent
 declarations are made, consequent upon the first

¶55

 :17:

¶56

 declaration being quashed. It is therefore
 submitted that in the instant case as what is
 impugned is the second declaration, the time
 prescribed under section 6 would not apply and,
 consequently, there is no infirmity or illegality
 which can result in the declaration being set
 aside.

¶57

 On behalf of the State, Respondents, it is
 submitted that they have only complied with the
 orders of this Court. The Petitioner, it is
 submitted, ought not to be permitted to raise such a
 contention, considering the judgment of this Court.
 At least, in the exercise of its Extra Ordinary
 Jurisdiction, this Court ought not to interfere with
 the declaration issued, and consequently, the
 petition be dismissed.

¶58

 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
 contentions advanced. More so, in the context that
 it is this Court which had remitted the matter to
 the land acquisition officer, after the quashing the
 declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition
 Act. Whether we should accept the argument canvased
 on behalf of the State/Respondents, will be
 considered after examining the issue of law arising

¶59

 :18:

¶60

 in this petition.

¶61

 7. For the purpose of discussion, we may reproduce
 the relevant portion of section 6 of the Land
 Acquisition Act, 1894 :-

¶62

 "6. Declaration that land is
required for a public purpose.-(1)
 Subject to the provisions of Pat
 VII of this Act, when the
 appropriate Government is satisfied
 after considering the report, if
 any, made under section 5A,
 sub-section (2), that any
 particular land is needed for a
 public purpose, or for a Company, a
 declaration shall be made to that
 effect under the signature of a
 Secretary to such Government or of
 some officer duly authorised to
 certify its orders, and different
 declarations may be made from time
 to time in respect of different
 parcels of any land covered by the
 same notification under section 4,
 sub-section (1), irrespective of
 whether one report or different
 reports has or have been made
 (wherever required) under section
 5A, sub-section (2);

¶63

 [Provided that no declaration in
 respect of any particular land
 covered by a notification under
 section 4, sub-section (1),-

¶64

`(i) published after the`
`commencement of the Land`
`Acquisition (Amendment and`
`Validation) Ordinance, 1967`
`(1 of 1967) but before the`
`commencement of the Land`
`Acquisition (Amendment) Act,`
`1984 (68 of 1984) shall be`
`made after the expiry of`

¶65

 :19:

¶66

 three years from the date of
 the publication of the
 notification; or

¶67

 (ii)published after the
 commencement of the Land
 Acquisition (Amendment) Act
 1984, shall be made after
 the expiry of one year from
 the date of the publication
 of the notification:]

¶68

 [Provided further that] no such
 declaration shall be made unless
 the compensation to be awarded
 for such property is to be paid
 by a Company, or wholly or
 partly out of public revenues or
 some fund controlled or managed
 by a local authority.

¶69

 [Explanation 1.-In computing
 any of the periods referred to in
 the first proviso, the period
 during which any action or
 proceeding to be taken in pursuance
 of the notification issued under
 section 4, sub-section (1), is
 stayed by an order of a Court shall
 be excluded.

¶70

 Explanation 2.- ..............
 ...................................
 .................................."

¶71

 We shall first examine, as to whether the time
 limit for the declaration under section 6 is only in
 so far as the first declaration that is made and not
 the subsequent declaration, on the first declaration
 being quashed. K. Chinnathambi Gounder & Anr.

¶72

 (supra), was a proceeding initiated before the
 amendment to section 6, by Act 68 of 1984 with
 effect from 24.9.1984. Considering the section as

¶73

 :20:

¶74

 it stood before this amendment, the learned Full

¶75

 Bench of the Madras High Court was pleased to hold
 that the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" will
 apply to the legislative measure contained in the
 first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act
 notwithstanding there being no express provision in
 the proviso to causes which are delayed by reason of
 issuance of a Courts order. This maxim, the Court
 held, is founded upon justice and good sense; and
 affords a safe and certain guide for the
 administration of the law. The Court therefore held
 that the time prescribed under section 6, as it then
 stood, would not apply to a subsequent declaration,
 as on account of the stay order in favour of the
 Petitioners, the Government was not a free agent
 during that period to set right any mistakes
 committed by it.

¶76

 The Full Bench of the Madras High Court, was
 considered by a learned Division Bench of this Court
 in Anna Shankar Walvekar (supra). Here also, the
 land was sought to be acquired for the Vadgaon
 Agricultural Produce Market Committee. It was
 submitted before the learned Division Bench that
 section 6 as applicable at the relevant time,
 provided that a declaration could not be made after

¶77

 :21:

¶78

 the expiry of the time set out therein. Relying on
 the judgment in K. Chinnathambi Gounder & Anr.
(supra), the learned Division Bench noticed that the
 second declaration made beyond a period of three
 years, could not be held to be invalid and there was
 no necessity that a second declaration should be
 made within the period of three years from the date
 of the notification under Section 4. The Court held
 that the first proviso to section 6(1) refers only
 to the declaration under section 6 and does not say
 that effect to declaration shall be made within
 three years. Nor does the section say that in the
 event of the declaration being quashed by the Court,
 the subsequent declaration should be made within
 three years. From the judgment of the learned
 Division Bench of this Court, which followed the
 judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court,
 it would appear, that in so far as the fresh
 declaration under section 6, the time prescribed to
 make a fresh declaration, will not apply.

¶79

 8. We will now consider the judgment of the Supreme
 Court relied upon on behalf of the Petitioners.
 Reliance was placed on the judgment in N.
Narasimhaiah & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,
(1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 88. The matter had

¶80

 :22:

¶81

 came up in Appeal to the Supreme Court from the

¶82

 judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High
 Court. The learned Division Bench there, had noted
 that the declaration under Section 6, published in
 the first instance was within the period prescribed
 under the proviso to Section 6(1). The learned
 Division Bench had held that after the declaration
 under Section 6 was quashed in the first instance,
 the limitation of one year does not apply. It
 further held that the view that the declaration
 under section 6 is still required to be published
 from the date of the notification under Section 4(1)
 is not correct in law. Before the Supreme Court,
 reliance was placed on the judgment in Oxford
English School v. Govt. of T.N., 1(1995) 5 SCC,
206 and P. Chinnanna v. State of A.P., 2(1994) 5
SCC, 486to contend that the view of the High Court
 is not correct in law.

¶83

 On behalf of the Respondents, it was contended
 that on facts, the notification under section 4(1)
 and the declaration under section 6 were published
 within the limitation prescribed under the Act. By
 an act of the court, if the declaration under
 Section 6 of the Act was quashed, giving power to
 the Government to conduct an enquiry under Section

¶84

 :23:

¶85

 5-A, after giving opportunity to the claimants,
 declaration under Section 6 can never be made within
 the original period of limitation and public purpose
 would be in jeopardy since, under no circumstance,
 the enquiry and declaration under Section 6 could be
 done within the limitation prescribed in the first
 instance and second exercise will be rendered
 fruitless since by that the limitation prescribed
 under the proviso would stand expired. The Apex
 Court posed to itself a question, whether the
 limitation prescribed under the second (sic first)
 proviso to Section 6(1) would be applicable after
 the notification has been quashed by the High Court?
 Considering the scheme of the Act, the Court posed
 another question, whether the State is required to
 have the declaration published under Section 6
 within the limitation prescribed under the proviso
 to Section 6(1) of the Act ?

¶86

 After considering the judgments in Oxford
 English School v. Govt. of T.N., (supra) and P.
Chinnanna (supra), the Court answered the issue as
under :

¶87

 "Thus, we hold that the limitation
 prescribed in clause (ii) of the
 first proviso to sub-section (1) of

¶88

 :24:

¶89

 Section 6 would apply to
 publication of declaration under
 Section 6(1) afresh. If it is
 published within one year from the
 date of the receipt of the order of
 the court by Land Acquisition
 Officer, declaration published
 under Section 6(1) would be valid."

¶90

 Thus, the Supreme Court held that the
 declaration must be made within the time prescribed
 by Section 6. However, in a case where the
 declaration was quashed and the matter has been
 remitted by an act of the Court, the period would
 start running from the date of the receipt of the
 order of the Court by the Land Acquisition Officer.
 If such declaration is made within time prescribed
 in terms of the proviso, such declaration would be
 valid. In other words, the Court did not accept the
 law as laid down by the Full Bench of the Madras
 High Court, that for the second declaration, no time
 limit is prescribed. The Court, considering Section
 6, held, that a declaration has to be made within
 the time prescribed, but in a case where a fresh
 declaration has to be made on account of the order
 of the Court, then a fresh period would commence
 from the date of receipt of the order of the Court
 by the Land Acquisition Officer, to make the
 declaration in terms of the period prescribed under

¶91

 :25:

¶92

 Section 6. The judgment of the Division Bench of
 this Court in Anna Shankar Walvekar (supra) stands
 overruled.

¶93

 If the judgment is to be followed and applied
 to the facts of this case, it would be clear that
 the judgment of this Court is dated March 21, 2006
 and that declaration under Section 6 was made on
 10.8.2006 and, consequently, it would have been
 possible to hold that the declaration was made
 within time. The learned counsel however has drawn
 our attention to the subsequent judgment of the
 Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case
 of Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. (supra).

¶94

 9. The Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao (supra),
 noted the conflict between the decision in N.
Narasimhaiah & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
 and in an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court
 in A.S. Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu, where a
 Bench of three Judges, held that once a declaration
 under Section 6 has been quashed, a fresh
 declaration under Section 6 cannot be issued, if the
 prescribed period for the declaration to be made,
 has expired. The judgment in Oxford English School
v. Govt. of T.N. (supra) had also taken a view

¶95

 :26:

¶96

 similar as in A.S.Naidu’s case. After reviewing the
 law, the Court was pleaded to observe as under :

¶97

 "While interpreting a provision the
 court only interprets the law and
 cannot legislate it. If a
 provision of law is misused and
 subjected to the abuse of process
 of law, it is for the legislature
 to amend, modify or repeal it, if
 deemed necessary. (See Rishabh
Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B.
Capital Services Ltd.) The
 legislative casus omissus cannot be
 supplied by judicial interpretative
 process. Language of Section 6(1)
 is plain and unambiguous. There is
 no scope for reading something into
 it, as was done in Narasimhaiah
 case. In Nanjudaiah case the
 period was further stretched to
 have the time period run from date
 of service of the High Court’s
 order. Such a view cannot be
 reconciled with the language of
 Section 6(1). If the view is
 accepted it would mean that a case
 can be covered by not only clause
 (i) and/or clause (ii) of the
 proviso to Section 6(1), but also
 by a non-prescribed period. Same
 can never be the legislative
 intent."

¶98

 After so holding, the Court held that the view
 expressed in Narasimhaiah case (supra) and
Nanjudaiah case (supra) is not correct and was
 overruled while that expressed in A.S. Naidu case
 and Oxford case was affirmed.

¶99

 :27:

¶100

 It would therefore be clear from the judgment

¶101

 of the Constitution Bench that the period prescribed
 by the proviso to section 6 to issue the declaration
 under Section 6 cannot be extended either by an act
 of the Court.

¶102

 10. Though there is a judgment of the Constitution
 Bench in the field, yet it appears that an attempt
 was once again made to re-open the argument
 considering the practical difficulties faced in
Fulchand Bhagwandas Gugale & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases,
193. A Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court
 before whom that argument was sought to be contended
 was pleased to hold that considering the law laid
 down in Padma Sundara Rao (supra), the prescription
 of time-limit in Section 6 is peremptory in nature
 and there is no scope for stretching the period
 further to have the time period run from the date of
 the Supreme Court’s order.

¶103

 Considering the case laws discussed and the
 ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Padma
Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. (supra), as understood in
Fulchand Bhagwandas Gugale & Anr. (supra), it would
 be clear that there the period prescribed for is

¶104

 :28:

¶105

 declaration under Section 6 cannot be extended. In

¶106

 the instant case, considering the facts, the
 subsequent declaration pursuant to this Court’s
 remitting the matter, is clearly beyond the period
 prescribed.

¶107

 11. Once the law is so declared by the Supreme
 Court, will it be open to the Respondents to contend
 that though the law has been declared, yet this
 Court in the exercise of its Extra Ordinary
 Jurisdiction, ought not to grant the relief to the
 Petitioner. Unfortunately, the judgment of the
 Supreme Court was not brought to the attention of
 the Bench when the matter was first argued. Once
 the law is declared by the Supreme Court, that law
 is binding on this Court under Article 141 of the
 Constitution of India. It is not open to this Court
 therefore to refuse relief to a Petitioner on the
 ground that the Petitioner is trying to take
 advantage of the order of this Court. No question
 of waiver would arise in the case like the present,
 where the issue of law has been declared by the
 Supreme Court. It would not be possible,
 considering the law declared by the Supreme Court to
 refuse relief to the Petitioners.

¶108

 :29:

¶109

 12. In the light of the above, Petition would have
 to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of

¶110

 prayer (a).

¶111

 We make it clear that quashing of the
 declaration will not stand in the way of the
 Respondents State in issuing a fresh notification
 under Section 4, if so advised. That would be
 subject to whatever objections the Petitioners may
 have.

¶112

 In the circumstances of the case, there shall

¶113

 be no order as to costs.

¶114

(S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)(F.I. REBELLO, J.)

Sukumar M. Khot and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumar M. Khot and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sampat Baba Sathe Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

M/S.Popular Auto Manufacturing and Repowering Works Vs the Manager- Central Bank of India and Anr.

Siddha Sarana Sangh, Machnur and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sukumar M. Khot and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Balu Genubhau Gaware and Ors.

Manisha P. Kulkarni Vs Gokhale Education Society and Ors.