JUDGMENT
Jain, C.J.
1. This matter has been remitted by an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 4.10.2001. Now it has been placed before us. The points in issue are what will be relevant date qua Section 6 notification, whether it is the date of publication in the Gazette or the date of declaration i.e., whether it would be 9th May or 23rd May in the instant case, and whether the notification was issued within one year of the publication of Section 4 notification. Their Lordships while allowing the appeals, set aside the decision of the Division Bench and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and it was kept open for the parties to file affidavits indicating the starting point of limitation for the purpose of Section 6 notification.
1a. For consideration of the above point, it is necessary to narrate the relevant facts:
Lands situated in yalahanka, Jakkur and Shivanahalli villages in Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, were proposed for acquisition for providing house sites to members of U.A.S. Employees House Building Co-operative Society. Preliminary notification in that behalf was issued on 30.3.1990 and published in the “Sanjevani” and “Prajavani” newspapers on 31.3.1990 and 5.4.1990 and published in the official gazette on 12.4.1990. Thereafter, after enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act (in short ‘the Act’) final notification was issued on 9.5.1991 and published in the Official Gazette on 23.5.1991. Being aggrieved by the said notifications, land owners preferred Writ Petitions challenging the preliminary and final notifications, averring that the land is not required for public purpose, it is situated in agglomeration area, there are structures in the land sought to be acquired and also mainly contending that final notification was not issued within one year of publication of preliminary notification and hence acquisition proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed.
2. The Writ Petitions were resisted by the respondents and the Society filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the petitions and contended that lands were acquired for public purpose, viz., to provide house sites to its members. Prior approval of the State Government on the basis of the housing scheme submitted by the Society has been obtained before initiation of acquisition proceedings and final notification is declared within one year of notification under Section 4(1). It is stated that individual notices were served upon petitioners on 15.5.1990 and final notification declared on 9.5.1991 is within one year time prescribed under the Act.
3. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 14.2.1997 held that final notification was not declared within one year of publication of preliminary notification as preliminary notification was gazetted on 12.4.1990, original records did not reveal that any public notice was affixed at Village Panchayat and wherefore final notification dated 9.5.1991 is beyond time and hence quashed preliminary and final notifications impugned in the Writ Petitions.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, Society preferred W.A.Nos. 2319/1997 and connected matters and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 16.10.1998 confirmed the order 14.2.1997 passed by learned Single Judge (1999(1) KLJ 75).
5. Being aggrieved by common judgment, W.A.No. 2420 and 2544/ 1997 has been filed wherein respondent No. 8 had died and matter was posted for taking steps. However, in view of the order passed in the connected appeals, these appeals were also dismissed on 8.6.2000.
6. The Society being aggrieved by the orders passed in Writ Appeals preferred Civil Appeals before Supreme Court, C.A.Nos. 7016-7017/2000 were disposed of on 4.10.2001 and order passed by this Court was set aside and matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision. Following the said decision C.A. 2495-2496/ 2002 were disposed of in terms of order in C.A.Nos. 7016-7017/2000 and appellant was permitted to file application for bringing on record legal representatives of respondent No.8 on record. After remand the appellant-Society filed applications for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No.8 and the same has been allowed and we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in all these appeals, submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal and erroneous as the period of one year for declaration under Section 6 has to be calculated from the date of last of the notifications under Section 4(1) and hence if the said date is taken as 15.5.1990; i.e. the date on which notification was published in the office of Village Accountant/village Chawdi final notification declaration dated 9.5.1991 is within time prescribed under proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. He submitted that mahazar has been misconstrued by the learned Single Judge.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for land owners the Writ Petitioners respondents in these appeals submitted that, the learned Single Judge after verifying the original records has held that there was no public notice affixed in the Chawdi and mahazar cannot be construed as such and hence declaration of final notification is beyond period of one year prescribed under Section 6 and hence impugned order is entitled to be confirmed. They also submitted that in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7021-7022/2001 dated 4.10.2001 the only point that is required to be considered by this Court is as to whether the declaration under Section 6 dated 9.5.1991 is within one year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification in the gazette on 12.4.1990 and the question as to whether there was public notice in respect of preliminary notification and as to what date has to be considered for the purpose of notification under Section 4 of the Act cannot be considered by this Court as the same has become final in view of the decision of the Supreme Court.
9. The learned Government Advocate has produced the original records and submitted that the records would clearly show that a public notice dated 11.5.1990 was sent to the Village Accountant of Jakkur and Shivanahalli with a request to exhibit the same in the notice board of the Grama Panchayat office and copy was also sent to the Revenue Inspector Sri Neeru Pasha with a request to publish the same in the locality and return with a mahazar and thereafter, the Village Accountant has submitted a report stating that the preliminary notification has been exhibited in the notice board of the Grama Panchayat and accordingly a letter dated 31.5.1990 was received on 4.6.1990 and the Revenue Inspector has also sent the mahazar dated 15.5.1990 which shows that public notice was published in the locality and wherefore the period of limitation for the purpose of accounting the period of notification under Section 4 would commence from 11.5.1990 and the date on which it was published on the notice board of the Village Panchayat and the locality which is subsequent to 11.5.1990 and wherefore the notification under Section 6 dated 9.5.1991 is within a period of one year and wherefore the final notification does not suffer from any error or illegality.
10. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in reply has submitted that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7021-22/ 2001 has held that the outer limit of one year has to be considered as 9.5.1991 and not 23.5.1990 as held by the Division Bench and therefore it has to be taken as 9.5.1991 the date on which declaration was issued and not publication in the gazette on 25.3.1991, however, the question of starting point of limitation for the purpose of Section 6 has to be considered by this Court as the Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Division Bench and remanded the case for fresh decision in accordance with law and has also observed that it is open to the parties to indicate the starting point of limitation for the purpose of Section 6 notification. He further submitted that the appellant has filed affidavit while producing the copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court and has stated that the public notice dated 11.5.1990 was published in the village Chawdi on 15.5.1990 and the same was affixed to the notice board and he has produced copy of the same along with the affidavit as per Ex.A3 and accordingly, mahazar was also drawn and Revenue Inspector has submitted a report regarding publication of the public notice in the locality and submitted original records.
11. We have considered the contentions of the Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. We have also perused the original records.
12. It is well settled in view of decision of Supreme Court in C.A.Nos. 7016-7017/2001 dated 4.10.2001, in S.H. RANGAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2001 AIR SCW 4313 and in URBAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST, UDAIPUR vs BHARUL LAL, 2002 AIR SCW 3847, that publication of notification under Section 4(1) is condition precedent for initiation of Land Acquisition Proceedings whereas, declaration under Section 6 has to be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and no time limit is prescribed for publication of notification under Section 6 in the Official Gazette. Supreme Court has specifically held that in the present cases, declaration of public purpose under Section 6 on 9.5.1991 is the relevant date for calculation of prescribed time from the date of notification of preliminary notification and not date of publication in the gazette on 23.5.1991. However, it was left open to the parties to file affidavit indicating the starting point of limitation for the purpose of Section 6 notification. Therefore, it is clear that once the date of starting point was left open and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law including the starting point of limitation for the purpose of Section 6 notification, the argument that the point has already been decided by the Apex Court has no substance.
13. The ingredients of Section 4(1) of the Act are as under (as held in URBAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST case, 2002 AIR SCW 3847):
“Whenever it appears to appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or likely to be needed for the public purpose or for a company:-
1) a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette; and
2) It is also required to be published in
a) two daily newspapers circulating in that locality, and
b) the Collector is required to cause public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality:
3) the last date of such publication and giving such public notice is considered as “the date of publication of the notification.”
14. There is no dispute in the present case that preliminary notification dated 30.3.1990 was published in newspaper on 31.3.1990 (Sanjevani) and 5.4.1990 (Prajavani) and that preliminary notification was published in Karnataka Gazette on 12.4.1990. However, there is dispute on the question of fact as to whether public notice of the substance of notification under Section 4 was notified and if so, on what date as the last of such publication and giving such notice is considered as “the date of publication of notification” for calculation of prescribed period of one year under Section 6(1) of the Act. According to the landowners petitioners, no public notice was displayed in Village Panchayat or convenient place in the locality. Per contra, as per the appellant-Society public notice of substance of notification was published in the office of the Village Accountant (Village Chawdi) on 15.5.1990 and mahazar was drawn by the Revenue Inspector has reported accordingly on 31.5.1990 and hence final declaration is in time.
15. The averment made in the affidavit filed by the appellant stating that public notice dated 11.5.1990 was published in the notice board of the Village Panchayat of Jakkur and Shivanahalli and there was publicity of said notice in the locality is clearly revealed from the perusal of the original records produced by the learned Government Advocate. It is clear from the perusal of the original records produced by the learned Government Advocate that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the newspapers ‘Sanjevani’ and ‘Prajavani’ on 31.3.1990 and 5.4.1990 respectively and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 12.4.1990. Further, public notice was issued on 11.5.1990 and copy of the same has been sent to the Village Accountant, Jakkur and Shivanahalli with a request to publish the notice in the notice board of the Grama Panchayat and to give publicity. Copy has also been sent to the Revenue Inspector with a request to publish the same in the village and to send the mahazar regarding compliance. Pursuant to the said public notice dated 11.5.1990 mahazar has been sent by the Revenue Inspector on 31.5.1990 which has been received in the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 4.6.1990 stating that as per the order public notice has been displayed on the notice board of the office of the Village Account at Jakkur and Shivanahalli and mahazar is prepared regarding the same which has been sent to the Land Acquisition Officer. The records also reveal that the Village Accountant has also sent a mahazar regarding the publication of the public notice dated 11.5.1990 and due publicity has been given as requested in the order dated 11.5.1990. The mahazar is dated 15.5.1990 and wherefore, it is clear that public notice was issued on 11.5.1990 and the same was published in the notice board of the Village Accountant as per the report dated 31.5.1990. Wherefore, in view of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act and in view of the requirements of the same as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the URBAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST case, the last date of such publication and giving such public notice under Section 4(1) shall be considered as the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 and that would be the starting point for calculating the time limit of one year to the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and even if the date of public notice dated 11.5.1990 is taken as the starting point as the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, the declaration under Section 6 made on 9.5.1991 is within one year as prescribed under Section 6(1) of the Act and wherefore, the final notification cannot be said to be bad on the ground that it is not notified within one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act as held by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has taken the date of publication under Section 4(1) of the Act in the gazette 12.4.1990 as the starting point and date of final notification as 9.5.1991 and has held that it is beyond one year and that therefore the final notification is vitiated in view of the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act. But it seems, as stated, it has escaped the notice of the learned Single Judge to consider the second mahazar dated 15.5.1990. Under the circumstances, the finding of the learned Single judge is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. On a perusal of the original records, it clear in the instant case that the date of public notice is 11.5.1990 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is 9.5.1991 which is within one year from the date of public notice. In view of this the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the mahazar does not show that the public notice was exhibited in the Notice Board of the Panchayat and it only shows that the notice has been served on the persons who have signed the mahazar. The learned Single Judge failed to note that the original records produced by the learned Government Advocate, as stated, would clearly show that the public notice has been exhibited in the Notice Board of the village Panchayat of Shivanahalli and Jakkur. We hold that the acquisition proceedings are valid and the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the acquisition proceedings in so far as it relates to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 2919/1992 and connected matters dated 14.2.1997 is set aside. The Writ Appeals are allowed and the Writ Petition are dismissed.