Land acquisition limitation and compensation dates: fresh Section 6 declaration runs from court order receipt, while Section 4 date controls compensation.

Where a High Court sets aside dispensation of the Section 5A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and directs fresh consideration, the one-year limit for a renewed Section 6(1) declaration is computed from receipt of the court's order by the Land Acquisition Officer, not from the original Section 4(1) publication. That construction preserves the acquisition process after compliance with Section 5A and avoids defeating the judicial direction. The fresh declaration under Section 6(1) does not create a new Section 4(1) date for compensation; the relevant date under Section 23(1) remains the original Section 4(1) publication, and the declaration relates back to it.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the High Court quashes dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and permits the State to proceed afresh, the declaration under Section 6(1) must still be published within one year from the original publication under Section 4(1); and whether such fresh declaration can alter the date relevant for determination of compensation under Section 23(1).

Analysis: The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shows that Section 4(1) initiates acquisition for a public purpose, Section 5A confers a right of objection, Section 17(4) permits dispensation of that enquiry in urgency cases, and Section 6(1) makes the public purpose conclusive upon declaration. The Court held that where the urgency dispensation is set aside and the State is directed to hold a Section 5A enquiry, the limitation in the first proviso to Section 6(1) cannot be read rigidly from the original Section 4(1) publication, because that would defeat the very public purpose and render the judicial direction ineffective. The appropriate construction is to treat the limitation as running from the date on which the court's order is received by the Land Acquisition Officer, so that the fresh declaration after compliance with Section 5A remains within time if published within one year of such receipt. The Court further held that the fresh declaration under Section 6(1) only completes the acquisition process and does not create a second Section 4(1) notification date for compensation purposes; the relevant date under Section 23(1) remains the date of the original Section 4(1) publication, and the declaration under Section 6(1) relates back to that date.

Conclusion: The one-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 6(1) applies to the fresh declaration computed from receipt of the court's order by the Land Acquisition Officer, and the original Section 4(1) notification continues to govern compensation; the challenge therefore fails.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition was upheld, the fresh declaration was treated as valid, and the appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a court sets aside dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A and remits the matter for fresh consideration, the limitation for a renewed Section 6(1) declaration runs from the receipt of the court's order by the acquiring authority, and the original Section 4(1) notification remains the operative date for compensation.

---