2009 Supreme(SC) 1832

2009(8) Supreme 441
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee, and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
R. Kolandaivelu & Ors. — Appellants
versus
The Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8235 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(c) No. 7410 of 2007)
Decided on : 11-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Explanation to Section 11 A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is intended to confer a benefit on the land holder, whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section 6 is made.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4(1),11A – Acquisition of lands of appellants situated in district of Salem, Tamil Nadu – A notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 24.12. 1986 for acquisition of said lands – A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.12. 1987 – Two writ petitions were filed questioning the validity and legality of the aforesaid notification and the declaration before the High Court – In the pending writ petitions, interim order was passed granting Interim stay for four weeks – Writ petitions dismissed – Appeals – Dismissed – Special leave petitions on plea that having regard to fact that interim order of stay was operative only for a period of four weeks High Court had fallen into a grave error in dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants inasmuch as the award passed on 23.08.1993 was clearly beyond the period of two years from the date of issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 23.12.1987-Held explanation to Section 11 A of the Act is intended to confer a benefit on the land holder, whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section 6 is made- By the provision of Section 11A, State authorities are required to pass a final award within two years. from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act failing which, the acquisition proceedings would lapse, and it would clearly show the intention of the legislature that the benefit of this provision would be in favour of the land owner if the award could not be passed within two years from the date of declaration when no order was obtained by the land owner from the Court staying the acquisition and the· land would revert back to the land owner because of expiry of the period of two. years from the date of declaration or notification within the meaning of Section 11A of the Act - Initially the interim order of stay was granted staying the notifications for four weeks, but from the record and the conduct of both the parties and after considering the fact that the State/respondents had to file an application for vacating the stay order thinking that stay order. was continuing and the appellants having contested the said application for stay till the disposal of the .same, there could not be any doubt that both the parties proceeded on the basis that the· interim order of stay passed initially for four :weeks continued till the final order of interim stay passed by the High Court on the application for vacating the interim order of stay – Hence held that award was passed in accordance with Section 11A of the Act, that is to say, the award was passed within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act – No reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by High Court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13 to 18)

       Facts of the Case :

        Lands of appellants situated in district of Salem, Tamil N adu were acquired herein in the instant case. A notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 24.12. 1986 for acquisition of said lands and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.12. 1987.Two writ petitions were filed questioning the validity and legality of the aforesaid notification and the declaration before the High Court . In the pending writ petitions, interim order was passed granting Interim stay for four weeks. On Writ petitions being dismissed Appeals were filed which were also dismissed.

        2. Present Special leave petitions have been filed on plea that having regard to fact that interim order of stay was operative only for a period of four weeks High Court had fallen into a grave error in dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants inasmuch as the award passed on 23.08.1993 was clearly beyond the period of two years from the date of issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 23.12.1987.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held explanation to Section 11 A of the Act is intended to confer a benefit on the land holder, whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section 6 is made. By the provision of Section 11A, State authorities are required to pass a final award within two years. from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act failing which, the acquisition proceedings would lapse, and it would clearly show the intention of the legislature that the benefit of this provision would be in favour of the land owner if the award could not be passed within two years from the date of declaration when no order was obtained by the land owner from the Court staying the acquisition and the· land would revert back to the land owner because of expiry of the period of two. years from the date of declaration or notification within the meaning of Section 11A of the Act . Initially the interim order of stay was granted staying the notifications for four weeks, but from the record and the conduct of both the parties and after considering the fact that the State/respondents had to file an application for vacating the stay order thinking that stay order. was continuing and the appellants having contested the said application for stay till the disposal of the .same, there could not be any doubt that both the parties proceeded on the basis that the· interim order of stay passed initially for four :weeks continued till the final order of interim stay passed by the High Court on the application for vacating the interim order of stay. Hence held that award was passed in accordance with Section 11A of the Act, that is to say, the award was passed within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. No reason was found to interfere with the impugned order passed by High Court. Appeal was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.