The Law Commission
of India, in its 182nd Report on Amendment to Section
6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has recommended removal of
the lacuna regarding the absence of a provision fixing a period
for making of a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 in the event of any action or proceeding initiated under
Section 4 (1) notification or Section 6 declaration being quashed
by the courts.
The need for removal
of the lacuna arose following decisions of the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court in Padmasundra Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(JT 2002(2) SCI) delivered on March 13, 2002 overruling its earlier
judgement in N. Narsimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka) (1996 (3)
SCC 88) case, on the ground that fixing of any further period
by a judgement for making a fresh declaration, as done in the
latter case, would amount to legislation by judicial fiat. In
Narsimhaiah’s case, it was held that where any declaration made
under Section 6 (1) was set aside or quashed by a court, a fresh
declaration could be made within prescribed period from the date
of judgement of the court. This view was not accepted in Pandamasundara
Rao’s case.
The Law Commission
has, therefore, recommended amendment to Section 6 to sub serve
the public purpose and to allow the land acquisition proceedings
to be continued without a fresh notification under Section 4 (1)
so as to render the judicial process meaningful efficacious.
The effect of judgment
of Pandamasundara Rao is prospective only as directed by the Supreme
Court in that judgement. After analyzing the case, law and legal
provisions, the Law Commission in this report has recommended
amendment to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Commission
has recommended that where any action or proceeding taken under
Section 4(1) notification or Section 6(1) declaration is quashed
by the court on or after March 13, 2002, a fresh declaration under
6 (1) may be made within 80 days from the date of judgement of
the court.
The Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, was enacted for the purpose of compulsorily acquiring
land required for public purposes or for purposes of companies
and for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid
on such acquisition. The Act contemplated that initially a notification
under Section 4(1) has to be issued indicating the intention of
the Government to acquire land or other property. Thereafter,
objection may be filed under Section 5A by those interested in
the land before the Collector who will give oral hearing and thereafter
he will submit a report to the concerned Government taking further
action. In case of urgency, hearing procedure under Section 5A
can be dispensed with under Section 17(4). Thereafter, if the
Government decides in favour of acquisition, a declaration under
Section 6(1) has to be made. But this declaration should be made
within one year from the date of last publication of Section 4(1)
notification. An explanation given below Section 6(1) indicates
that where any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of
the notification under Section 4(1) is stayed by an order of the
court, period of stay order in force should be excluded in computing
the period of one year. This explanation does not exclude the
period covered by the litigation where the various proceedings
after Section 4(1) notification or consequential Section 6(1)
declaration are held bad by the court. In the absence of a provision
in Section 6, the court cannot exclude the period covered by the
court proceedings leading upto the date of quashing of the proceeding
or the Section 6 (1) declaration.
