9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the appellant, were arrived at between the landowner and the Corporation, the Corporation was to pay an additional rent of ₹ 750 per month, a sum of ₹ 4500 by way of advance and was to execute a lease for ten years from 1-4-1976 to 31-3-1986. The appellant's case is that accordingly the Corporation put up certain structures, but the Corporation did not abide by the agreement and declined to execute the lease. A notice was, therefore, given by the appellant calling upon respondent I to execute the agreement of lease. 2. The appellant's case is that after this notice was served, the State Government, respondent 2, came out with a notification under S. 4(1) of the Act, on 9-3-1977. After the notification was published, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement under which respondent 1 was obliged to execute a lease for a period of the ten years. This was in 0. S. 62 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. After the suit was filed a declaration under S. 6 of the Act also came to be issued on 8-2-1978. The main contesting defendants in the suit were the Corporation and the State Government. Notwithstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6 of the Act dt. 8-2-1978. It would not be proper for us to express any opinion as to the scope of that suit because the matter is still pending in appeal in A. S. 134 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. It is, however, sufficient to mention that by a judgment dt. 18-10-1982, the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, decreed the suit and quashed the proceedings under S. 5-A of the Act as well as the declaration under S. 6 of the Act. It is this decree of this District Munsif Court, which is appealed against by the appellant and in the appeal his case was that even the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was liable to be quashed. 7. It appears that the State Government accepted the decision' and after making a fresh enquiry under S. 5A of the Act, issued a fresh declaration under S. 6 of the Act, on 3-12-1983. It is this declaration dt. 3-12-1983 that was challenged by the appellant by way of a writ petition. It appears that two contentions were raised before the learned Judge. The first contention was that the declaration dt.3-12-1983, published in the Gazette dt. 4-12-1983 was void and illegal since it was made beyond the period of three y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is difficult for us to see, how any decision in O. S. 62 of 1977 could prevent the State Government from exercising its powers under the Land Acquisition Act. While disposing of O. S. 62 of 1977, it has been expressly held that no relief is asked for against the State Government and the State Government was not a necessary party. In view of these findings anything said in the judgment in O. S. 62 of 1977 cannot affect the statutory powers of the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act. It is also difficult to see what nexus there can be between the lease executed by the Corporation and the Statutory Powers of the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act. Undoubtedly ,the Land Acquisition proceedings are in respect of the land which has been taken on lease by the Corporation; but it is not the law that where a Corporation has taken a particular land on lease, the State Government could not exercise its powers of acquisition under the land Acquisition Act, in respect of that land. The reference to the interim order of injunction appears to us wholly inapposite because these observations did not survive after the decision of the suit, especially when in the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. 5-A and declaration under S. 6 quashed, 3-12-1983 The impugned declaration under S. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The contention is that with reference to the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act, the impugned declaration D/- 3-12-1983, is admittedly issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the declaration not being within the period prescribed by the first provision to S. 6(1) of the Act, it must be held to be invalid. 11. It is not possible to accept this contention. After providing for the, issue of a declaration under S. 6(1) of the Apt, the first proviso to S. 6(1) reads as follows:- Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under S. 4, sub-sec. (1) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance 1967 shall be made after the expiry of three years form the date of such publication . This proviso was deleted by Act 68 of 1984 and as a result of this amendment, a new proviso was substituted, which is as follows- Provided that, no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under S. 4, sub-s. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the appellant is right when he contends that this Explanation cannot be availed of by the State Government. For the Explanation to be attracted and to be availed of by the State Government, it must be shown that the State Government was prevented as a result of a stay or injunction order from taking any proceedings further to the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act. On a bare reading of this explanation, it is clear that the Explanation inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1980 is not attracted in a case where a declaration under S. 6 is already issued and there were proceedings consequent upon a challenge to the declaration under S. 6 of the Act. The explanation, therefore, is not relevant for our purpose. 12. What is, however, contended is that merely because a declaration under S. 6 was once issued on 8-2-1978, the State Government is not absolved of its obligation to issue a second notification within a period of 3 years from the date of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act even when a declaration originally issued under S. 6(1) has been quashed or declared illegal by any Court. Now the proviso clearly refers to the issue of a declaration under S. 6 which foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the court will be only to remove the validity and legal force of the declaration which had been quashed. This decision of the Full Bench is binding on us. Accordingly, we must reject the argument that the declaration dt. 3-12-1983, published on 4-12-1983, is void on the ground that it was issued beyond the period prescribed by the proviso to S. 6(1) of the Act. 13. Before parting with this appeal, we must make it clear that anything that we have said in this judgment will not affect the challenge which is pending before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, to the notification under S. 4(1), Land Acquisition Act. Our decision in this appeal is restricted to the validity of the declaration under S. 6(1) of the Act. If for any reason the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act is quashed or declared illegal by any Court, it is obvious that the State Government will not be entitled to give effect to the declaration under S. 6(1) of the Act. Conversely if the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act is held to be valid, then having regard to the view which we have taken with regard to the validity of the declaration under S. 6(1) of the Act, the appellant will not now be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
