Land acquisition declaration remains valid after quashed earlier notice, and private decree does not limit the State's acquisition power.

A fresh declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not invalid merely because it was issued more than three years after the original Section 4(1) notification, where an earlier declaration had already been made and later quashed; the quashing removed its legal effect but did not erase the fact of the earlier declaration. The Court also held that a decree for specific performance against the Corporation, and the related lease arrangement, did not bind the State Government or curtail its independent statutory power to acquire land. The acquisition challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was invalid because it was issued after the expiry of three years from the notification under Section 4(1), when an earlier declaration had been quashed and a fresh declaration was later made. (ii) Whether the decree for specific performance and the lease executed by the Corporation prevented or defeated the State Government's acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Issue (i): Whether a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was invalid because it was issued after the expiry of three years from the notification under Section 4(1), when an earlier declaration had been quashed and a fresh declaration was later made.

Analysis: The three-year limit in the proviso to Section 6(1) governs the making of a declaration pursuant to the Section 4(1) notification. Where a declaration was originally issued within time and was later quashed, the quashing only removes its legal force and does not erase the fact that a declaration had been made. A fresh declaration issued after the earlier one was set aside is not rendered invalid merely because it is made beyond three years from the original Section 4(1) notification. The binding Full Bench view was applied.

Conclusion: The challenge to the declaration on the ground of expiry of three years failed and the declaration was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree for specific performance and the lease executed by the Corporation prevented or defeated the State Government's acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: The decree in the suit for specific performance operated only against the Corporation, which alone was the party from whom relief was sought. The State Government was held not to be a necessary party in that suit, and nothing in that decree could bind or curtail the State Government's statutory power to acquire land under the Act. Interlocutory directions in the earlier suit could not survive after disposal of that suit. The lease arrangement also did not create any legal bar to acquisition.

Conclusion: The contentions that the acquisition was premature or that the prior decree and lease invalidated the acquisition proceedings were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the impugned declaration under Section 6(1) and found no merit in the challenge based on the lease or the earlier decree, leaving the acquisition proceedings unaffected by the present appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A fresh declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not invalid merely because it is made beyond three years from the original Section 4(1) notification after an earlier declaration was quashed, and a decree against a private party does not restrict the State's independent statutory power of acquisition.

---