Supreme Court upholds Division Bench decision on land acquisition, sets one-year deadline for award, dismisses appeals.

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision regarding the validity of the declaration published under Section 6(1) and the notification under Section 4(1). The Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to complete the award enquiry within one year from the date of receiving the Court's order. The appeals were dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the exercise of emergency power u/s 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Applicability of the limitation period prescribed u/s 6(1) after the quashing of the notification u/s 4(1).
3. Determination of compensation date u/s 23(1) in relation to the notification dates.

Summary:

1. Validity of the exercise of emergency power u/s 17(4):
The appellants challenged the exercise of emergency power u/s 17(4) by the Government, which dispensed with the enquiry u/s 5A. The High Court quashed the order dispensing with the enquiry and directed the authorities to continue the acquisition proceedings from the stage of the preliminary notification. The enquiry u/s 5A was conducted, and a declaration was published on May 13, 1989. The validity of this declaration was again questioned, but the Division Bench upheld it, setting aside the learned single Judge's order.

2. Applicability of the limitation period prescribed u/s 6(1):
The core issue was whether the limitation prescribed under the second proviso to Section 6(1) would apply after the notification u/s 4(1) was quashed by the High Court. The Court held that the limitation period should be counted from the date of the court's order received by the Land Acquisition Officer. If the declaration is published within one year from that date, it would be valid. This interpretation ensures that the public purpose is not frustrated and judicial review remains effective.

3. Determination of compensation date u/s 23(1):
The appellants contended that there would be two dates of notification u/s 4(1), leading to incongruity in determining compensation u/s 23(1). The Court clarified that the declaration u/s 6(1) gives conclusiveness to the public purpose specified in Section 4(1), and the notification under Section 4(1) remains valid for the purpose of computing market value. Thus, there are no two dates for the purpose of compensation determination.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's view that the declaration published u/s 6(1) on May 13, 1989, is valid, and the notification dated January 22, 1987, u/s 4(1) does not become invalid. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to complete the award enquiry within one year from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court. The appeals were dismissed without costs.

---