SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 651

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
L. N. Venkatesan – Appellant
Versus
State Of T. N. – Respondent


ORDER

These special leave petitions arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, made on July 19, 1996 in W.M.P. No. 5231/88. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 11.6.1975. Declaration under Section 6 was published on March 3, 1978. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 7645/86 and obtained stay of dispossession. Since the award was not made within two years under Section 11-A, he filed another writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 3450/88. The High Court holding that the bar of proviso does not attracts the operation of the stay obtained by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. Therefore, the acquisition does not stand lapsed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the interim stay granted was "not to dispossess" the petitioner and there is no impediment for the authorities to proceed further in passing the award. We find no force in the contention.

2. Section 11-A of the Act which reads as follows :

"11-A. Period within which an award shall be made.-The Collector 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









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top