Court Rules Fresh Section 6 Declaration Post Section 5-A Inquiry Must Comply with One-Year Limitation; Earlier Declarations Without Proper Inquiry Rendered Ineffective
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 14, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Sunitha Gandham) allowed writ appeals challenging the validity of land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government in West Godavari District. The bench set aside the notifications and declarations issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically relating to lands in Dorasanipadu and Dwaraka Tirumala villages, on the grounds of non-compliance with the mandatory time frame prescribed for issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
The controversy arose from the acquisition notifications issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act in early 2005, which dispensed with an enquiry under Section 5-A. Subsequent writ petitions challenged these notifications and declarations, leading to a 2005 High Court order directing the government to conduct a Section 5-A enquiry, as the urgency clause under Section 17(4) was not justified.
Following the Court's directions, the government conducted the inquiry and issued fresh declarations under Section 6 on April 12, 2007. However, the appellants contended that this fresh declaration was issued beyond the statutory period of one year from the date of the original Section 4(1) notification, even after excluding the period during which court stay orders were in place, thus rendering the acquisition proceedings invalid.
The Single Judge had earlier dismissed the petitions, holding that the first declaration under Section 6 remained valid and that the second declaration served as an addendum or erratum to the first. The appellants appealed this decision.
The Division Bench, after a detailed analysis of the provisions of Sections 4(1), 5-A, 6(1), and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents, overruled the Single Judge's findings. The Court emphasized that:
1. The proviso to Section 6(1) mandates that the declaration must be issued within one year from the date of the Section 4(1) notification, excluding only the period of stay ordered by courts. No other period can be excluded.
2. The initial declarations issued without conducting the mandatory Section 5-A enquiry, as directed by the Court, lost their legal sanctity and became ineffective.
3. A fresh declaration following the Section 5-A enquiry is not an addendum or correction of the earlier declaration but is a separate and independent act that must comply with the statutory limitation period.
4. Stay orders relating to different lands under the same Section 4 notification cannot be extended to exclude the limitation period for the lands of other petitioners who had separate writ petitions and whose cases were directed to proceed.
The Court, therefore, held that the fresh Section 6 declaration issued on April 12, 2007, was beyond the one-year statutory period and was accordingly unsustainable. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings relating to the lands of the appellants were quashed. The State Government was, however, granted liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with law.
This judgment reinforces the strict adherence to procedural safeguards and timelines in land acquisition cases, particularly the mandatory enquiry under Section 5-A and the one-year limitation for issuing declarations under Section 6, thereby protecting landowners from arbitrary or delayed acquisitions.
Bottom Line:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Declaration under Section 6 issued after enquiry under Section 5-A must be within the statutory period of one year from publication of Section 4(1) notification, excluding only the actual period of stay - Earlier Section 6 declaration issued by invoking urgency clause does not survive once Court directs Section 5-A enquiry - Subsequent declaration cannot be treated as erratum/addendum to earlier declaration - Stay granted in another case concerning different land cannot be excluded for computing limitation for petitioners' land.
Statutory provision(s): Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sections 4(1), 5-A, 6(1), 9, 11, 17(4)
