Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 473
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.K. Thakker & H.S. Bedi
LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL-PETITIONER
VERSUS
A.R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS-RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 6663 of 2000
DECIDED ON : 09/04/2007
Under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a two-year period for making an award lapses unless a court explicitly stays proceedings. A direction that actions be 'subject to the decision of the petition' is not a stay and does not exclude time.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 6 and 11A - Period for making award - Failure to make an award within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 leads to lapse of the entire acquisition proceedings.
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11A, Explanation - Exclusion of time - Period during which any action or proceeding is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. This provision is interpreted liberally; even a stay against dispossession alone would entail exclusion of the period from the statutory limit.
(C) Nature of Stay - Mere issuance of a rule on stay or an order stating that any further action taken will be subject to the final decision of the petition does not amount to a stay of proceedings. In the absence of a specific stay order, the period of pendency of a writ petition cannot be excluded while computing the two-year period under Section 11A.
Facts of the case:
Proceedings were initiated for the acquisition of two parcels of land for a school and a garden. The acquisition of the first parcel was finalized. The second parcel was challenged via a writ petition. The High Court issued a rule on stay and later directed that any construction on the land would be subject to the petition's outcome. No award was passed within two years of the Section 6 notification. The High Court held that the proceedings had lapsed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order passed by the High Court did not grant a stay against "any proceeding". The direction that construction would be subject to the decision of the petition did not attract the Explanation to Section 11A.
Issues: Whether the pendency of a writ petition, where no explicit stay order was granted and only a direction was given that future construction would be subject to the court's decision, allows for the exclusion of time under the Explanation to Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The Explanation to Section 11A applies only when there is an actual order of stay preventing the authorities from taking action in pursuance of the declaration. A "Rule on stay" or a conditional order that subsequent actions are subject to the court's decision does not constitute a stay of proceedings. Consequently, the statutory period for making the award remains unchanged, and failure to do so within two years results in the lapse of proceedings.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
C.K. THAKKER, J.
The present appeal is filed against the judgment dated March 14, 2000, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition No. 810 of 1986. By the said judgment, the High Court held that land acquisition proceedings in respect of acquisition of land bearing Survey No. 187/3A, admeasuring 30 ares of Malkapur Town, District Buldhana had lapsed. Shortly stated, the facts leading to the institution of present appeal are that the appellant is a Society registered on June 26, 1961 under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. It is also registered as Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 on August 17, 1962. The appellant is running a school in Buldhana. It approached the Government requesting for acquisition of land for school as also for garden. It appears that a letter was written by the Under Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra to the appellant informing it about acquisition of land of Survey Nos. 186 and 187 of Malkapur in Buldhana District for public purpose, viz. for running a school by the appellant. It was stated by the appellant that the respondent authorities prepared Final Development Plan of Malkapur Town under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning and Development Act, 1966 wherein 59 ares of land of Survey No. 186/4A and 30 ares of land of Survey No. 187/3A was reserved for the purpose of school and open space for garden for the appellant. A Resolution dated May 15, 1976 was also passed giving sanction to the Development Plan. Necessary proceedings were thereafter taken in accordance with law for the acquisition of land. So far as acquisition of 59 ares of land of Survey No. 186/4A for school is concerned, the question is no more under controversy. It had been finalized and the challenge to the said acquisition failed. The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed that in its opinion, "no fault can be found with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in relation to 59 ares of land." To that extent, therefore, the petition filed by the first respondent herein (original petitioner) came to be dismissed. With regard to 30 ares of land of Survey No. 187/3A earmarked for garden for the school, the contention of the first respondent original petitioner was that the award had not been passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the proceedings lapsed. The said contention was upheld by the High Court and it was ruled that after the final notification under Section 6 of the Act, award ought to have been made within a stipulated period of two years as required by Section 11A which was not done and hence the proceedings lapsed.The judgment of the High Court to the extent to which it held that the proceedings in respect of 30 ares of land of Survey No. 187/3A had lapsed that the appellant-Mandal is aggrieved and has challenged it by filing the present appeal.
It is not in dispute by and between the parties that proceedings had been initiated by the authorities for acquisition of land of two Survey Nos. (i) Survey No. 186/4A admeasuring 59 ares of land for school; and (ii) Survey No.187/3A admeasuring 30 ares of land for garden. It is also clear from the decision of the High Court impugned in the present appeal that though the first respondent had challenged land acquisition proceedings for both Survey Nos., the High Court negatived all contentions as to acquisition of land admeasuring 59 ares of Survey No. 186/4A and the petition was dismissed. It was only for 30 ares of land of Survey No. 187/3A that the Court held that though the notification under Section 6 was published on July 2, 1986, no award was made within two years as required by Section 11A of the Act and the proceedings had lapsed.
On July 28, 2000, the matter was placed for admission-hearing. Notice was issued and parties were directed to maintain status quo. On November 20, 2000, le
