1996 (11) TMI 461 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Compliance with mandatory conditions under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Validity of the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. Impact of the judgment of the learned single Judge quashing the declaration under Section 6(1).
5. Necessity for fresh publication of the declaration under Section 6(1) after quashing.

Summary:

1. Legality of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The Supreme Court examined whether the exercise of power under Section 17(4) invoking urgency clause under Section 17(1) is conditioned upon the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). It was established that the Government has the power to invoke Section 17(4) after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). The Court emphasized that the compliance of the three mandatory conditions under Section 4(1) is necessary before exercising the power under Section 17(4).

2. Compliance with mandatory conditions under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The Court reiterated that Section 4(1) requires three mandatory conditions: publication in the official Gazette, publication in two daily newspapers, and public notice of the substance of such notification in the locality. The last of the dates of such publication is crucial for the exercise of power under Section 17(4). The Court held that while these steps are mandatory, it is not necessary that all three steps be completed before making the declaration under Section 6(1) and publishing it.

3. Validity of the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The Court discussed the mandatory nature of the publication of the declaration under Section 6(1) to give conclusiveness to the public purpose. The declaration should be published in the Gazette after the notification under Section 4(1) is published, with at least a one-day gap between them. The Court held that the date of publication in the Gazette is crucial, not the actual date of printing.

4. Impact of the judgment of the learned single Judge quashing the declaration under Section 6(1):
The learned single Judge quashed the declaration under Section 6(1) published on December 24, 1986, which was later reversed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench's judgment restored the declaration under Section 6(1) published on December 24, 1986, making any subsequent declaration superfluous.

5. Necessity for fresh publication of the declaration under Section 6(1) after quashing:
The Court concluded that there was no necessity for fresh publication of the declaration under Section 6(1) after the learned single Judge quashed it, as the Division Bench's judgment restored the original declaration. The land vested in the State on January 29, 1987, free from all encumbrances, and the award became final.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Division Bench's judgment, and confirmed that the declaration under Section 6(1) published on December 24, 1986, was valid and restored. The compliance with the three steps under Section 4(1) is mandatory, but the exercise of power under Section 17(4) does not require waiting for the last of the dates of these steps. The appeals were dismissed without costs.