Mandatory limitation for section 6 land acquisition declarations cannot be extended because an earlier declaration was quashed.

The proviso to section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 fixes a mandatory time limit for issuing a declaration with reference to the section 4(1) notification date, and only the period expressly excluded by Explanation 1, namely a court-ordered stay of proceedings under that notification, can be ignored. A fresh section 6 declaration cannot be issued after that period merely because an earlier declaration was quashed, and the court cannot supply an omitted exception or extend time on grounds of convenience. The contrary line of authority was overruled, though the ruling was applied prospectively to protect cases where awards had already been made and compensation paid.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been quashed, the State can issue a fresh declaration beyond the limitation period prescribed in the proviso to section 6(1), and whether the period spent in litigation can be read into the provision.

Analysis: The limitation under the proviso to section 6(1) is expressed in plain terms and is linked to the date of publication of the section 4(1) notification. Explanation 1 excludes only the period during which proceedings pursuant to the section 4(1) notification are stayed by a court order. The text does not provide for any further extension where a prior declaration under section 6 is quashed. The court declined to supply a casus omissus or rewrite the statute on the basis of convenience, and held that the reasoning in the decisions extending time beyond the statutory period could not be reconciled with the language of the Act. The contrary view was therefore overruled, while the view that the statute permits no such additional period was affirmed.

Conclusion: A fresh declaration under section 6 cannot be issued beyond the statutory period on the ground that an earlier declaration was quashed; the contrary line of authority is overruled.

Final Conclusion: The statutory time limit for making a declaration under section 6 is mandatory, and only the period expressly excluded by the Act can be ignored. The judgment applies prospectively to protect cases where awards have already been made and compensation paid.

Ratio Decidendi: When a limitation period is stated in clear language and the legislature has expressly provided only specific exclusions, the court cannot enlarge the period by judicially supplying an omitted exception.

---