Land acquisition award passed beyond two years from declaration is a nullity and proceedings lapse.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the impugned final award passed by the Collector is void for being in derogation of the two-year statutory period prescribed under Section 11-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act.

The court held

The court held that the impugned award, insofar as it related to the petitioners, was a nullity due to the efflux of time

It also directed

the final award dated 03.07.2020 is quashed only regarding the petitioners; the Collector must pass a fresh award for the petitioners using 03.07.2020 as the reference date for market value determination; statutory benefits and interest must be calculated from the date of taking possession; and any compensation already received shall be adjusted in the final disbursement

01Facts

The petitioners are residents of Village Movalkote whose private lands, houses, and shops were acquired for the construction of the Sangaldan-Kanthan Bye-pass road under the NABARD scheme

pp. 2-3, para 2(I)

While acquisition attempts began in 2012, a fresh Notification under Section 4(1) of the J&K State Land Acquisition Act, Svt 1990, was issued on 07.03.2017

p. 4, para 4

A declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was subsequently issued on 16.08.2017

p. 4, para 4 · p. 6, para 9

The Collector Land Acquisition (SDM) Gool passed the final award on 03.07.2020

p. 7, para 10

The petitioners challenged the award and the entire acquisition proceedings, contending that the award was passed more than two years after the Section 6 declaration, thereby violating the statutory time limit under Section 11-B of the Act

p. 3, para 2(II) · p. 7, para 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the impugned final award passed by the Collector is void for being in derogation of the two-year statutory period prescribed under Section 11-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act.

p. 7, para 10

ii.2. Whether the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed due to the failure to make an award within the prescribed period.

p. 8, para 13

iii.3. What relief the petitioners are entitled to regarding the valuation of their land if the proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.

pp. 8-9, para 13

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 11-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990, which mandates that the Collector make an award within two years from the date of publication of the Section 6 declaration, failing which the entire acquisition proceedings lapse

pp. 7-8, para 11

The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Madhao v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 555, which affirmed that an award passed after the two-year limit is a nullity

p. 9, para 15

It further applied the principle of "moulding relief" from Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2022), which suggests that when land has already vested or been utilized for public purposes, the court may direct a fresh assessment of compensation using the date of the void award as the reference point for market value to avoid administrative chaos while protecting owners' rights

pp. 10-11, para 16, 18, 20

Provisions in the judgment · 11

State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1934 A.D.) 9 provisions

Section 4Section 6Section 7Section 9Section 9-ASection 11Section 11-BSection 17Section 17-A

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 11Section 17

04Reasoning

The court determined that the Section 6 declaration was issued on 16.08.2017, meaning the statutory two-year period for passing an award expired on 16.06.2019

p. 8, para 14

Because the final award was not passed until 03.07.2020, the proceedings statutorily lapsed under Section 11-B

p. 8, para 14

The court noted that the respondents provided no evidence of a court stay that would have excluded any period from this two-year calculation under the Section 11-B Explanation

p. 9, para 15

While the petitioners sought a total quashing and a restart under the 2013 Act, the court observed that the road was already constructed and other land owners had accepted the award

p. 12, para 20

Consequently, following the Division Bench precedent in Gulzar Ahmad Akhoon v. UT of J&K (2022), the court "moulded" the relief: it quashed the award only as it pertained to the petitioners and ordered a fresh valuation as of 2020 to ensure they received contemporary market rates without requiring a de novo acquisition process

pp. 12-13, para 20-21