- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Oxford English School v. Government Of T.N And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant–a society owning land measuring 1 ground and 1602 sq. ft. in Mambalam Village, Madras—was subjected to land-acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-Government.
- 24-08-1982: Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued for road, drainage and water-supply purposes (published on 08-09-1982).
- 19-12-1983: Declaration under Section 6 issued (published on 15-02-1984).
- 13-08-1984: Notices under Sections 9 and 10 served on the appellant, who submitted a compensation claim; no award was passed up to April 1987.
- April 1987: Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4836 of 1987 in the Madras High Court; interim protection against dispossession was granted on 12-05-1987.
- 28-04-1994: Division Bench of the High Court quashed the acquisition from the stage following the Section 4(1) notification for non-compliance with Rule 3(b), but directed a fresh Section 5-A inquiry, a fresh Section 6 declaration within six months, and an award within four months thereafter.
- The appellant challenged only these consequential directions before “this Court”; the respondents did not contest the quashing of the earlier proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can lawfully be issued more than three years after publication of the original Section 4(1) notification, in view of the proviso to Section 6 as amended by Act 64 of 1984.
- Whether periods covered by court-ordered stays obtained after expiry of the three-year period (or stays concerning adjacent land) can be excluded under Explanation 1 to the proviso so as to extend the limitation period for issuing a Section 6 declaration.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The High Court’s directions permitting a fresh Section 6 declaration conflict with the mandatory three-year outer limit in the proviso to Section 6.
- Because more than three years have elapsed since the Section 4(1) notification (08-09-1982), the statute bars any further declaration, rendering a fresh Section 5-A inquiry and subsequent steps impermissible.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Invoked Explanation 1 to the proviso, contending that time should be excluded for periods during which stays operated:
- Stay granted by the High Court on 20-04-1987 in the appellant’s writ petition.
- Stay dated 07-10-1985 granted in a writ petition by an adjoining land-owner.
- Administrative stay dated 27-10-1987 by the Minister for Local Administration.
- On exclusion of these periods, the respondents claimed a fresh Section 6 declaration would still be timely.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court focused exclusively on the statutory framework of Section 6:
- The proviso bars any declaration after three years where the Section 4(1) notification falls between the 1967 Ordinance and the 1984 Amendment. The appellant’s Section 4(1) notification (08-09-1982) squarely attracts this bar.
- The original declaration of 19-12-1983, though within time, has been quashed; therefore the question is confined to the legality of a fresh declaration.
- Explanation 1 excludes only the period “during which any action or proceeding ... is stayed by an order of a court.”
- The first relevant stay order (20-04-1987) was granted long after the three-year period expired on 07-09-1985; exclusion of time after expiry cannot revive a lapsed power.
- The stay dated 07-10-1985, although by a court, concerned a different land-owner; the Explanation does not permit importing such periods for the appellant’s land.
- The administrative stay by the Minister (27-10-1987) is not a “court” order and is outside the Explanation.
- Accordingly, even after applying Explanation 1, the statutory bar remains “absolute.” The High Court therefore lacked authority to allow a fresh Section 6 declaration or subsequent award.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; the High Court’s directions ordering a fresh Section 5-A inquiry, a new Section 6 declaration within six months, and an award within four months are set aside. No order as to costs. Contempt Petition No. 262 of 1994 is rendered infructuous and dismissed.
Implications are confined to the parties: the acquisition proceedings cannot be revived under the original 1982 notification, and the appellant’s land is freed from the challenged acquisition process. The judgment turns solely on statutory interpretation and does not articulate any new precedent beyond enforcing the strict time limit in the proviso to Section 6.
Sujata V. Manohar, J.— Leave granted.
2. The appeal pertains to land admeasuring 1 ground and 1602 sq.ft in TS No. 3/1.part, Block No. 31, Mambalam Village, Madras owned by the appellant society. By a notification dated 24-8-1982 issued by the respondent-Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a portion of the said land was notified as required for road and water drainage arrangements. The notification was published in Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 8-9-1982. Thereafter the respondent-Government issued a declaration dated 19-12-1983 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the said land for the public purpose of providing a road, drainage and water facilities. The notification was published in Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 15-2-1984. On 13-8-1984, the appellant was also served with notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant thereto, the appellant submitted a claim for compensation. No award, however, was made thereafter till April 1987.
3. In April 1987, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras being Writ Petition No. 4836 of 1987 challenging the said acquisition proceedings. On 12-5-1987 the appellant obtained an interim order from the High Court of Madras restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from dispossessing the appellant.
4. The contention of the appellant in the said writ petition to the effect that the provisions of Rule 3(b) framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 55(1) of the said Act, which are mandatory in nature, had not been complied with in their case, has been upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the impugned judgment dated 28-4-1994. The Division Bench has set aside the entire acquisition proceedings after the stage of Section 4(1) notification and has allowed the writ petition accordingly in part. The Division Bench has, however, directed that there shall be a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law. It was further directed that the enquiry shall be completed and if the Government decides to proceed with the acquisition the declaration shall be issued under Section 6 of the said Act within six months from the date of the judgment and the award shall be passed within four months thereafter. These latter directions dealing with a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A and subsequent steps directed to be taken by the High Court are the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal which is preferred by the appellant. The findings of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court setting aside acquisition proceedings after the stage of Section 4(1) notification have not been challenged before us by the respondents.
5. It is urged before us by the appellant that the subsequent directions which have been given by the High Court are in clear conflict with the proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant had also preferred a revision petition before the Madras High Court on the basis of the proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The revision petition, however, was dismissed. Whereupon the appellant has come before this Court.
6. The relevant provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after its amendment by Act 64 of 1984 are as follows:
“6. (1) …when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, … a declaration shall be made to that effect … 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 5-A, sub-section (2):
Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section (1),—
(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, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or
(ii) …
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.”
The amended provisions came into effect from 24-9-1984 and were in force on the date of the impugned judgment.
7. In the present case the notification under Section 4(1) was published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 but after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967. In view of the above proviso the declaration cannot be made under Section 6 in respect of any land covered by the said notification after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the said notification. In the present case Section 4(1) notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 8-9-1982. Undoubtedly, the notification under Section 6, dated 19-12-1983 has been made and published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette within the period of three years prescribed under the proviso. This declaration, however, has been quashed in the present proceedings. The question is whether a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the said Act can be made in respect of any land notified under Section 4(1) by the notification of 24-8-1982 after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). The answer is clearly in the negative.
8. The respondents have relied upon Explanation 1 to the proviso which provides that in computing the period of three years the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) is stayed by an order of court shall be excluded. In the case of the appellant such a stay was obtained by them from the High Court of Madras on 20-4-1987. This was long after the expiry of the period of three years provided under the proviso to Section 6. Even if one excludes the period during which the subsequent stay operated, the issuance of a fresh declaration under Section 6 would be clearly beyond the period of three years prescribed under the proviso to Section 6. Since the prohibition on issuance of a declaration under Section 6 after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is absolute, the High Court could not have given any direction permitting issuance of the declaration under Section 6 within six months from the date of its judgment.
9. It is, however, urged by the respondents that we should also take into account the stay granted by the High Court of Madras on 7-10-1985 in respect of a writ petition which was filed by an adjoining landowner whose land was also notified under the same notification dated 24-8-1982. Even this stay is beyond the period of three years from the date of publication of the said notification under Section 4(1) in the Tamil Nadu Gazette — the date being 8-9-1982.
10. The respondents further drew our attention to an order of stay dated 27-10-1987 granted by the Minister for Local Administration on a petition which was filed by the adjoining landowner before the Government. Such a stay, however, cannot be taken into account for the purposes of Explanation 1 since Explanation 1 requires that the order of stay should be passed by a court. In any event a stay in respect of proceedings pertaining to an adjacent land cannot be availed of by the respondents in calculating the period of three years within which the declaration under Section 6 is required to be made in respect of the appellant's land.
11. In the premises, the appeal is allowed and the directions of the High Court regarding a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A and a declaration under Section 6 to be issued within six months of the impugned judgment if the Government decides to proceed with the acquisition, as also the direction that the award shall be passed within four months thereafter, are set aside. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
12. In view of the above findings nothing now survives in the Contempt Petition No. 262 of 1994 taken out by the appellant in these proceedings. There will, therefore, be no order on the contempt petition.
Alert