Urgency acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act: Section 6 declaration need not await full Section 4(1) publication compliance.

In urgency acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 17(4) was interpreted to require only that the Section 6 declaration follow publication of the Section 4(1) notification by at least one day; completion of all three Section 4(1) publication modes was not treated as a condition precedent for urgency action. The Gazette publication was treated as the operative publication, and the urgency power was held valid despite incomplete newspaper and locality notices. A later Section 6 publication, made after an earlier declaration had been quashed, was held to have no legal effect once the original declaration was restored and possession had already been taken, because the land had vested in the State.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for invoking the urgency power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State must complete all three publications contemplated by Section 4(1) before making and publishing the declaration under Section 6(1). (ii) Whether the later publication of a Section 6 declaration after the earlier declaration had been quashed affected the validity of the acquisition.

Issue (i): Whether, for invoking the urgency power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State must complete all three publications contemplated by Section 4(1) before making and publishing the declaration under Section 6(1).

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read as requiring strict compliance with the three modes of publication under Section 4(1) when the power of acquisition is exercised in the ordinary course, but not as insisting that all those steps must be completed before the State can make and publish a declaration under Section 6(1) in an urgency situation. The decisive requirement under Section 17(4) was held to be that the declaration under Section 6(1) must follow the publication of the Section 4(1) notification by at least one day. The court treated the Gazette publication as the operative publication and held that insistence on completion of the newspaper and locality notices as a condition precedent to urgency action would defeat the object of immediate possession.

Conclusion: The Section 17(4) urgency power was validly exercised even though the newspaper and locality publications under Section 4(1) were not completed before the Section 6(1) declaration.

Issue (ii): Whether the later publication of a Section 6 declaration after the earlier declaration had been quashed affected the validity of the acquisition.

Analysis: Once the earlier declaration had been quashed by the single Judge, the later publication was held to be unnecessary and without operative effect because the Division Bench had restored the original acquisition declaration by setting aside the quashing order. The land had already vested in the State after possession was taken, and the subsequent declaration did not alter the legal position. The withdrawal power was also held inapplicable after vesting.

Conclusion: The later Section 6 publication had no legal consequence and did not invalidate the acquisition.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition was upheld, the appellants' challenge failed, and the dismissal of the writ petitions by the Division Bench was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an urgency acquisition, Section 17(4) requires that the Section 6 declaration be made after the Section 4(1) notification is published, but it does not require completion of all subsidiary publication steps under Section 4(1) before the declaration; once possession is taken and the land vests, a subsequent redundant declaration does not affect the acquisition.

---