TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The controversy raised in this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in N. Narasimhaiah vs. State of Karnataka [(1996) 3 SCC 88]. The admitted facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on August 26, 1982 and enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted thereafter. But befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declaration under Section 6 dated June 24, 1985 quashed since the notification under Section 4(1) was dated August 26, 1982 and the declaration could not be published within three years even after excluding the period of pendency of the writ petitions under proviso to Section 6 of the Act. Thus, the notification under Section 4(1) was quashed. We find no justification for the view taken by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case (supra). For the same ratio, the appeals are to be allowed and the declaration has to be quashed. Accordingly, the declaration is quashed. The appellant is permitted to conduct an enquiry within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order and have the declaration published within one month thereafter. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
