Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMED NENDOLIYA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1991
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 2153 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 158
1991 SCC (4) 531 1991 SCALE (2)608
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Section 11-A---Explanation--Interpretation of--Acquisi-
tion of landproceedings--When lapse---Two-Year period for
making of award--Computation of--Whether entire period
during which any action or proceedings pursuant to declara-
tion under Section 6 remained staved to be excluded.
HEADNOTE:
A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was published in respect of lands under the appel-
lant’s occupation. The appellant challenged the notifica-
tion before the High Court and prayed for an interim stay of
operation and implementation of the notification. Pending
admission of the appellant’s Special Civil Application, the
High Court granted limited interim relief by restraining the
respondent from taking possession of the lands. Meanwhile
Respondent No. 2, the Land Acquisition Officer, issued a
notice under Section 9(1) of the Act and proceeded to deter-
mine the compensation. In the enquiry, he rejected the
appellant’s objection that as two years had elapsed after
the publication of the notification and no award had been
made within the said period, all the acquisition proceedings
lapsed and were exhausted. The High Court also rejected the
appellant’s appeal, relying on the decision of a Division
Bench of the High Court, that Section 11-A of the aforesaid
Act enjoined exclusion of the entire period during which any
action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to a declaration
under Section 6 was stayed by an order of a competent court,
and that the Explanation to the Section was not confined to
the staying of the making of the award, pursuant to Section
6 of the notification, but it was widely worded and covered
in its sweep the entire period during which any action or
proceeding was stayed by a competent Court.
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appel-
lant it was contended that by Explanation to Section 11-A
the only period excluded in computing the period of two
years was the period during which any action
159
or proceeding taken in pursuance of the declaration under
Section 6 upto the making of the award under Section 11 was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
stayed and that the question of taking possession could
arise after making the award and merely because the land-
holder obtained an injunction restraining land acquisition
authorities from taking possession that could not serve to
exclude any time from the period of two years within which
the award must be made.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: The Explanation to Section 11-A of the Land Acqui-
sition Act, 1894, which prescribes the period to be excluded
while computing the period of two years within which the
award has to be made, 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. In the first place, where the case is covered by Sec-
tion 17, the possession can be taken before an award is made
and there is no reason why the expression "the period during
which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of
the said declaration is stayed by an order by a Court", in
the Explanation should be given a different meaning, depend-
ing upon whether the case is covered by Section 17 or other-
wise. On the other hand, the Explanation is intended to
limit the benefit conferred by Section 11-A on a land-holder
whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section
6. The benefit is that the award must be made within a
period of two years of the declaration, failing which the
acquisition proceedings would lapse and the land would
revert to the land-holder. In order to get the benefit of
the said provision what is required, is that the land-holder
who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from
a court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of
the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act so that the
operation of the beneficial provisions of Section 11-A is
confined to cases of those land-holders who do not obtain
any order from a court which would delay or prevent the
making of the award or taking possession of the land ac-
quired. [163 E-H, 164 A]
The High Court was, therefore, right in rejecting the
appellant’s challenge to the continuance of the proceedings.
[164-B]
Special Civil Application No. 4314 of 1990 decided by
Gujarat High Court approved.
160
S. BavajanSahib v. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 1988
Kerala 280, disapproved.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 3659 of
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.1990 of the
Gujarat High Court in Spl. Civil Application No. 7685 of
1990.
Dushyant Dave, Ms. Indu Malhotra and Ms. Shirin Jain for
the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KANIYA, J. Leave granted. Counsel heard
This appeal raises an interesting question
regarding the interpretation of Section 11-A
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as "the said Act"). Section 11-A
was inserted into the said Act by Section 9 of
Act 68 of 1984.
The relevant facts lie within a very narrow compass. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
appellant is the occupant of lands comprising Survey Nos.
864 and 687 respectively of village Samal Pati in Patan
Taluka of Mehsana District in Gujarat. The said lands were
sought to be acquired by the State of Gujarat, Respondent
No. 2 herein, for the purpose of ’the North Gujarat Univer-
sity. The notification under Section 6 of the said Act in
respect of the said lands was issued on May 12, 1988. The
parties proceeded on the assumption that it was published in
the locality around about that time. The learned Counsel for
the appellant stated in the High Court that such publication
took place sometime in June 1988, and the parties as well as
the Court proceeded on the footing that the said statement
is correct. The appellant challenged the said notification
by filing Special Civil Application No. 4342 of 1988 in the
High Court of Gujarat. On the prayer for interim relief made
by the appellant for the stay of the operation and implemen-
tation of the said notification, the Gujarat High Court
granted only a limited interim relief by restraining re-
spondent No. 1 from taking possession of the said lands of
the appellant pending admission of the said special civil
application. The said interim relief, which was granted on
August 8, 1988, still continues to be operative. In the
meantime, respondent No. 2, being the Land Acquisition
Officer concerned, issued a notice under Section 9(1) of the
said Act and proceeded to determine the compensation after
hearing the objections. In the inquiry held by respondent
No. 2 in respect of the objections the appel-
161
lant took up the contention that, as two years had elapsed
after the publication of the notification making the decla-
ration under Section 6 of the said Act, and no award had
been made within the said period, all the acquisition pro-
ceedings in respect of the said lands lapsed and the acqui-
sition proceedings were exhausted. The said contention of
the appellant was rejected by the land acquisition authori-
ties. The appellant challenged this decision of the land
acquisition authorities by filing the Special Civil Applica-
tion No. 7685 of 1990 in the High Court of Gujarat. The
challenge made by the appellant to the continuance of the
acquisition proceedings was repelled by the Gujarat High
Court relying on the decision of an earlier Division Bench
of that Court comprising of R.C. Mankad and K.J. Vaidya, JJ.
in Special Civil Application No. 4314 of 1990. It was held
by the Division Bench that Section 11-A of the said Act
enjoins exclusion of the entire period during which any
action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to a declaration
under Section 6 is stayed by an order of a competent court.
The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court took the view
that the Explanation to Section 11-A is not confined to the
staying of the making of the award pursuant to Section 6 of
the notification, but it is widely worded and covers in its
sweep the entire period during which any action or proceed-
ing to be taken in pursuance of the declaration under Sec-
tion 6, is stayed by a competent court. I1 is the correct-
ness of this decision, which is assailed before us.
In order to appreciate the submissions made before us,
it will be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of’
the said Act. Section 4 of the said Act deals with the
publication in the Official Gazette of the preliminary
notification that it appears to the appropriate government
that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be
needed for any public purpose or for a company, where it so
appears to the appropriate Government. Section 5A provides
for the hearing of the objections to the proposed acquisi-
tion. Section 6 provides for the issuance of a declaration
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
of intended acquisition, namely, that land is required for a
public purpose after considering the report, if any, made
under Section 5-A. Section 11 of the said Act deals with the
enquiry into the matters set out therein and the making the
award of compensation by the Collector. The said section
prescribes that the said award, inter alia, shall determine
the compensation which in the opinion of the Collector
should be allowed for the land and for apportionment of such
compensation among all the persons interested in the said
land as provided in Section 11 (i) (iii) of the said Act.
Section 11-A which was inserted in 1984 into the said Act as
stated earlier runs as follows:
"11-A. Period within which an award shall be
made---The Col-
162
lector shall make an award under Section 11
within a period of two years from the date of
the publication of the declaration and if no
award is made within that period, the entire
proceedings for the acquisition of the land
shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said decla-
ration has been published before the commence-
ment of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1984, the award shall be made within a period
of two years from such commencement."
Explanation: In computing the period of two
years referred to in this section, the period
during which any action or proceeding to be
taken in pursuance of the said declaration is
stayed by an order of a Court shall be exclud-
ed.
Section 12 deals with the question as to when the award
of the Collector becomes final. Section 15 deals with the
matters to be considered and matters to be neglected in the
determination of the compensation. Section 16 deals with the
power to take possession and provides that when the Collec-
tor has made an award under Section 11, he may take posses-
sion of the land which shall thereupon vest absolutely in
the Government free from encumbrances. Section 17 confers
powers on the appropriate government to take possession of
any land needed for a public purpose and intended to be
acquired, although no award has been made, in cases of
special urgency.
The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is
that in the present case the notification under Section 6 of
the said Act was published in June 1988 and, as the award
under Section 11 not made by the Collector within a period
of two years from the date of the publication, the entire
proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed. In
connection with the Explanation to Section 1 I-A it was
submitted by learned Counsel that by the said Explanation
the only period excluded in computing the aforesaid period
of two years is the period during which any action or pro-
ceeding taken in pursuance of the said declaration under
Section 6 upto the stage of Section 11, namely, upto the
making of the award under Section 11 was stayed by the order
of a competent court. It was submitted by him that the
question of taking possession would arise after making the
award under Section 11 and merely because a landholder
obtained an injunction restraining land acquisition authori-
ties from taking possession that would not serve to exclude
any time from the aforesaid period of two years within which
the award must be made.
163
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
In support of his contention learned Counsel for the
appellant relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the Kerala High Court in S. Bavajan Sahib v. State of
Kerala and others, AIR 1988 Kerala 280. In his judgment the
learned Single Judge has taken the view that the action or
proceeding contemplated by the Explanation to Section 11-A
of the said Act is any action or proceeding to be taken
after the making of the declaration under section 6 and
before the passing of the award under section 11. Such
actions are those contemplated by sections 7 to 10. The
question of taking possession of the land arises only when
the award is passed under Section 16 of the said Act except
in cases of emergency covered under Section 17. It was
pointed out by the learned Judge that the case before him
was not a case in respect of which Section 17 was applicable
and hence, unless there was a stay of the proceedings con-
templated by Sections 7 to 10 or of further proceedings
pursuant to the declaration under Section 6 the Explanation
will not operate so as to extend the period of two years
prescribed by Section 11-A. We find ourselves unable to
agree with the view of the learned Single Judge of the
Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment. In the Expla-
nation to Section 11-A of the said Act which prescribes the
period which is to be excluded, the expression used is
"the period during which any action or pro-
ceedings to be taken in pursuance of the said
declaration is stayed by an order by a Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
The said Explanation is in the widest possible terms
and, in our opinion, there is no warrant for limiting the
action or proceeding referred to in the Explanation to
actions or proceedings preceding the making of the award
under section 11 of the said Act. In the first place, as
held by the learned Single Judge himself where the case is
covered by Section 17, the possession can be taken before an
award is made and we see no reason why the aforesaid expres-
sion in the Explanation should be given a different meaning
depending upon whether the case is covered by Section 17 or
otherwise. On the other hand, it appears to us that Section
11-A is intended to limit the benefit conferred on a land
holder whose land is acquired after the declaration under
Section 6 is made to in cases covered by the Explanation.
The benefit is that the award must be made within a period
of two years of the declaration, failing which the acquisi-
tion proceedings would lapse and the land would revert to
the land-holder. In order to get the benefit of the said
provision what is required, is that the land-holder who
seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from a
164
court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of
the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act so that the
Explanation covers only the cases of those land-holders who
do not obtain any order from a court which would delay or
prevent the making of the award or taking possession of the
land acquired. In our opinion, the Gujarat High Court was
right in taking a similar view in the impugned judgment.
In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and it is
dismissed.
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.
165