Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
s. 11A - Applicability of - Failure to declare award u/s. 11 within a period of 2 years from the date of publication of declaration u/s. 6, due to stay order by High Court in respect of land belonging to other land-owners - Whether would attract s. 11A - Held: If there is stay over the land acquisition proceedings by the Court, in one or the other matter arising from the self-same acquisition proceedings in reference to s. 4 followed by s. 6, the authorities would be justified to stay their hands and await decision of the Court - Period during which there is stay over the proceedings, has to be excluded, in computing the statutory period of two years in passing of an award u/s. 11 - In the present case, the case in which the High Court had stayed the proceedings was in respect of the land of same village under the very notification and for the very project - The period during which the stay was operative,is to be excluded - On exclusion of the said period, acquisition proceedings would not lapse,in view of explanation to s. 11A - Limitation.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. When the scheme of the acquisition is one, interim stay granted in respect of one pocket of land would operate even with respect to other pockets of land and in such a situation the authorities are justified in not proceeding with the acquisition proceedings and therefore the acquisition proceedings would not lapse. Interim order of stay granted in respect of one of the land owners would have a complete restraint for the authorities to proceed further. When the stay has been granted in one matter and where the scheme was one, the authorities were justified to stay their hands.
(ii) and (iii).] [604-D-F]
[Para 7.5 (i),
2. The extended meaning of the words “stay of the action or proceedings under Section 11A of the Act” would mean that any interim effective order passed by the court which may come in the way of the authorities to proceed further. Explanation to Section 11A of the Act is in the widest possible terms and there is no warrant for limiting the action or proceedings, referred to in the explanation, to actions or proceedings preceding the making of the award under Section 11 of the Act and therefore the period of injunction obtained by the land holders staying the acquisition and authorities from taking possession of the land has to be excluded in computing the period of two years. [Para
7.5 (iv) and (v)] [604-G-H; 605-A]
3. Merely because when award was declared, the lands with respect to Writ Petition Nos. 3051/2013 and 3159/2013 were excluded and therefore, it cannot be said that the period during which the stay was operating in the aforesaid Writ Petitions shall not be excluded. The words “stay of the action or proceedings under Section 11A of the Act” would mean that any order of stay in one or the other matter if passed by Court of law, which either prohibits or prevents the State authorities from passing of an award, such a period of stay of action/proceedings deserves to be excluded while computing the statutory period of two years in passing of an award by the authority under Section 11 of the Act. Even otherwise, there was already a stay of possession in Writ Petition No. 7867/2012 and therefore the authorities were justified in not proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings. [Para 7.6] [605-C-E]
4. It is true that there is no bar to have more than one declaration under Section 6 or the award under Section 11 of the Act in reference to the self-same acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4 followed with Section 6 of the Act but if there is a stay of the proceedings by a Court of law in any of the matter, that certainly prevents the authorities in taking its decision to complete the acquisition proceedings within the statutory period as mandated by law in passing of award within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. [Para 7.7] [605-F-G]
5. Thus, if there is any stay over the action or proceeding by a Court of law, in one or the other matter arising from the self-same acquisition proceedings in reference to Section 4 followed with Section 6 of the Act, the authorities are said to be justified in the given facts and circumstances to stay their hands and await the decision of the Court and such a period during which there is a stay over the action or proceeding by a Court of law in a matter, that has to be excluded for all practical purposes, in computing the statutory period of two years in passing of an award under Section 11 of the Act. [Para 7 and 8] [605-H; 606-A-B]
6. In the present case, considering the fact that there was a stay granted by the High Court in writ petition Nos. 3051/2013 and 3159/2013 (filed by other landlords) against declaring the final award and the said writ petitions were with respect to the lands acquired of the very village under the very notification and for the very project and there was stay of possession in writ petition in the present case during the pendency of the said petition, the period during which the aforesaid stay/s was/were operative is to be excluded and if the said period is excluded, in that case, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse, considering explanation to Section 11A of the Act. Under the circumstances, the High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the same have lapsed as the award was not declared within a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The High Court has committed a grave error in not excluding the period of interim stay granted by it in writ petition nos. 3051/2013 and 3159/2013. Even grant of interim stay of possession would also save lapsing of the acquisition. [Para 8] [606-B-E]
G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. State of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261 : [1991] 2 SCR 563 ; Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 531 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 158 ; Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v.. State of Rajasthan (1993) 2 SCC 662 : [1993] 2 SCR 788; Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra (1993) 3 SCC 634 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 216 ; Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka (1994) 4 SCC 145 ; Abhey Ram v.Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 421 : [1997] 3 SCR 931 ; Om Prakash v. Union of India (2010) 4 SCC 17 : [2010] 2 SCR 447 ; Raj Kumar Gandhi v. Chandigarh Administration and others (2018) 7 SCC
763 - relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.