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

2012 Supreme(SC) 259

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. Lodha and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Mulchand Khanumal Khatri
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 4990 of 2003
Decided On: 27.03.2012

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Subrat Birla and S.C. Birla, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Hemantika Wahi, Jesal and Rojalin Pradhan, Advs.

IMPORTANT POINT
Period lapsed between judgment of a Court and receiving copy thereof cannot be excluded for limitation u/s 11A.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A(1), Proviso – Declaration u/s 6 published before commencement of Amendment Act and award was made after coming into force thereof – Proviso attracted – Period of two years to run from date of coming into force of Amendment, i.e., September 24, 1984 – The only period excludable is the period during which the action or proceedings to be taken pursuant to the said declaration remains stayed under the order of a court – Interim stay vacated on 11.1.96 – Copy of judgment and order passed on 11.1.96 received by authorities on 5.9.97 – High Court excluding period from 11.1.96 to 5.9.97 from limitation – Not permissible – Period lapsed between judgment of a Court and receiving copy thereof cannot be excluded – Acquisition proceedings lapsed. (Para 10, 12, 13)

       (2007) 5 SCC 23 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The Appellant challenged the acquisition of his land in a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court. An interim relief in the above matter was granted on April 18, 1984.

       The Act was amended on September 24, 1984 whereby Section 11A was brought in the statute book.

       The Special Civil Application filed by the Appellant was dismissed on January 11, 1996. The Dy. Collector made the award on August 31, 1998.

       Before the High Court the Appellant took the stand that the award having been passed beyond two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6, by virtue of Section 11A of the Act, the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

       The High Court dismissed the application.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

1. The judgment and order dated December 26, 2002 passed by the Gujarat High Court is under challenge in this Appeal by special leave.

2. The Appellant claims to be joint owner of the land being Survey No. 11430 admeasuring 34 sq. mtr. at Palanpur, Gujarat. On April 1, 1980, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') that proposed acquisition of the Appellant's land and some other land for the public purpose, namely, construction of Palanpur City and taluka Police Station. The said notification was published in the Government Gazette on January 8, 1981. Later on, Section 4 notification wag revised and published in the Official Gazette on September 22, 1983. The declaration under Section 6 was published on January 5, 1984. The Appellant challenged the acquisition of his land through the above notifications in a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court. An interim relief in the above matter was granted on April 18, 1984.

3. The Act was amended on September 24, 1984 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Amendment Act') whereby Section 11A was brought in the statute book.

4. The Special Civil Application filed by the Appellant was dismissed on January 11, 1996. The Dy. Collector made the award on August 31, 1998.

5. Before the High Court, inter alia, the argument was canvassed on behalf of the Appellant that the award having been passed beyond two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6, by virtue of Section 11A of the Act, the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The High Court, however, repelled the above argument and held as follows:

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that their earlier petitions were dismissed and the stay granted earlier stood vacated by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.1.96. Therefore, the Authority was supposed to declare the Award within a period of 2 years from that day i.e. 11.1.96. The said period would expire on January 10, 1998 whereas Award Under Section 11 came to be passed only in August, 1998 which is admittedly after a period of 2 years. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench of this Court earlier dismissed their writ petitions on 11.1.96 and vacated the interim relief, but the vacation of interim relief granted in favour of the Petitioners must be brought to the notice of the concerned Authority. Merely because they were represented through their counsel before the court would not be sufficient. Unless and until certified copy of the said judgment and order passed by the court is brought to the notice of the Authority, the Authority is not supposed to act. The period of 2 years would start only from the date of the notice. In reply affidavit it has been clearly stated that the copy of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 11.1.96 was received by them only 5.9.97.

In that view of the matter, admittedly the Award dt. 31.8.98 passed Under Section 11 of the Act was within a period of 2 years.

6. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the High Court was of the view that unless and until certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the court 'was brought to the notice of the authority, the authority was not supposed to act and the period of two years under Section 11A of the Act would start only from the date of such notice and as the copy of the judgment and order passed by the High Court on January 11, 1996 was received by the competent authority on September 5, 1997, the Respondents were entitled to the benefit of the entire period from January 11, 1996 to September 5, 1997.

7. We are unable to accept the view of the High Court.

8. Section 11A of the Act reads as under:

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

(1) 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 period,












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 Back to top