Mandatory limitation under Section 6 of land acquisition law invalidated a second declaration issued beyond the statutory period.

The proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was treated as mandatory because it bars a declaration after one year from publication of the Section 4 notification. The earlier quashing of the first Section 6 notification did not suspend or extend that statutory limit, so a fresh declaration had to comply with the same time constraint. Counsel's concession could not validate an act prohibited by statute, since there can be no estoppel against a mandatory provision. The prior High Court observations were treated as per incuriam because the limitation issue under the proviso had not been specifically considered. The second Section 6 notification was therefore invalid as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 6, and whether the earlier order or counsel's concession prevented the challenge.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 6, which prohibits making a declaration after the expiry of one year from the publication of the Section 4 notification, was treated as mandatory because it is framed in negative language. The earlier quashing of the first Section 6 notification did not extend or suspend the statutory time limit for issuing a fresh declaration. A concession by counsel could not override the statute, since there can be no estoppel against a mandatory statutory provision. The observations in the earlier High Court order were treated as per incuriam because the limitation aspect under the proviso to Section 6 had not been specifically considered.

Conclusion: The second Section 6 notification dated 30.10.2006 was invalid as time-barred, and the appellants succeeded.

---