Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6, Proviso to Section 6(1) - Declaration - Previous declaration quashed by Court - Subsequent declaration - Limitation for - Whether starts from the date of Notification u/s 4(1) or from the date of quashing or order - Held, limitation would start from the date of Notification and not from the date of order - Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 - Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. 

Interpretation of statutes - Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous - The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretive process - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6(1). 

Doctrines:

Stare decisis - Applicability of when a judicial decision has been nullified by Judgment laying down law - Subsequent legislation.

Ratio Decidendi - Applicability of - Courts not to place reliance thereon without considering the applicability of fact situation. 

Notification u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued before the commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 but after the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967. Notification for declaration under Section 6(1) was issued and published in the Official Gazette within the period of three years prescribed under proviso thereto. The same was quashed by High Court. Thereafter subsequent notification under Section 6 was issued. Appellants challenged the same on the ground that it was barred by limitation as the limitation for such notification was to be counted from the date of Notification under Section 4(1). High Court relying on Narsimiah's case held that it was validly issued as the limitation was to be counted from the date of order quashing the earlier notification under Section 6. Hence these appeals.

In view of difference of opinion on the question of limitation under Section 6 of the Act among the various Benches of this Court, the matter was referred to the present Constitution Bench.

In A.S. Naidu's case and Oxford English School's case, the opinion was that limitation in such cases is to start from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, while in N. Narsimaiah's case and D.C. Nanjudaiah's case, the Court had opined that the limitation would start running from the date of receipt of the order quashing the declaration and not from the date of original notification under Section 4(1). 

Appellants contended that plain reading of Section 6 shows that the declaration has to be issued within specified time, therefore, if opinion in Narsimaiah's case is accepted, it would amount to legislation by the Court which is not permitted.

Respondents contended that opinion in Narsimiaiah's case was in line with the statutory intent, hence extension of time limit was permissible; that since K. Chinnathambi Gounder's case had held the field since long, principle of Stare Decisis was applicable; and that since many acquisitions had become final and if matters were re-opened and different views taken, it would cause hardship.