Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7212-7213 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.29306-29307 of 2010)
Decided On : 29-08-2013
Land Acquisition Act- Sections 11A and 28A- Parliament has, wherever it intended, specifically provided for exclusion of time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order. For instance, under Section 28A which provides for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the Award of the Court, the aggrieved party is entitled to move a written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the Award of the Court or the Collector requiring him to determine the amount of compensation payable to him on the basis of the amount Awarded by the Court. Proviso to Section 28A specifically excludes the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the Award while computing the period of three months within which the application shall be made to the Collector.
Absence of a provision analogous to proviso to Section 28A (supra) in the scheme of Section 11-A militates against the argument that the omission of such a provision in Section 11-A is unintended which could be supplied by the Court taking resort to the doctrine of casus omissus. (Paras 16, 17)
Interpretation of the Statutes- Principle of casus omissus - a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the Legislature. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
In terms of a notification dated 30th August, 1992 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, a large extent of land was notified for acquisition for the benefit of the appellant-company. A final declaration in terms of Section 6 was made on 2nd March, 1994. The declaration in the instant case was published on 2nd March, 1994 while the Award was made on 5th November, 1999. But the interim order of stay was issued by the High Court on 6th December, 1995 which order was finally vacated on 28th July, 1999 with the dismissal of the writ petition. The restraint order remained in force for a period of 3 years, 7 months and 22 days. That period shall have to be added to the period of two years prescribed for making the Award in the light of Explanation to Section 11-A. The difficulty is that even if the said period is added to the time allowed for making an Award, the Award stands beyond the period prescribed.
A writ was filed in the High Court challenging the validity of the Award made by the LAO/Collector on the ground that the same was beyond the period of two years stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act.
Findings of the Court:
Section 11-A did not admit of an interpretation by which the period of two years would start running from the date a copy of the order vacating the stay granted by the Court is served upon the Collector. Of course, once an application is made within the prescribed period of limitation, the time spent in the preparation and supply of the copy is excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal or revision. The omission of a provision under Section 11-A analogous to the proviso under Section 28A is obviously not unintended or inadvertent which is the very essence of the doctrine of casus omissus.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 7th September 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.936 of 2006 and an order dated 21st August 2009 passed in W.A.M.P. No.2901 of 2008 in W.A. No.936 of 2006 whereby the High Court has dismissed the Writ Appeal and the review petition filed by the appellant holding that the LAO/Collector, Land Acquisition having made the Award beyond the period of two years stipulated in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities have lapsed.
3. The appellant happens to be a Government company engaged in coal mining operations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of a notification dated 30th August, 1992 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, a large extent of land measuring 35 acres and 09 gts. In Survey Nos.285, 287 and 288 situated in village Jallaram, Kamanpur Mandal and Karimnagar Districts was notified for acquisition for the benefit of the appellant-company. A final declaration in terms of Section 6 was made on 2nd March, 1994, the validity whereof was assailed by four owners (Pattadars), respondents in this appeal in Writ Petition No.27/483 of 1995 primarily on the ground that the declaration under Section 6 had been issued beyond the period of limitation stipulated for the purpose. An application for interim stay was also moved by the writ-petitioners, in which a Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted an interim stay on 6th September, 1995. The writ petition was finally dismissed by the High Court by a judgment and order dated 20th July, 1999. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the respondent filed Writ Appeal No.1228 of 1999 which too failed and was dismissed by the Division Bench on 13th August, 1999.
4. With the dismissal of the writ petition and the appeal arising out of the same, the Collector made an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 5th November, 1999. The appellant-company’s case is that all the owners, except the four respondents who had moved the High Court, sought a reference of the dispute regarding the quantum of compensation payable to them to the Civil Court in which Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, District Karimnagar, A.P. held the expropriated owners entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre besides enhanced value of the structure, wells and trees standing on the same. The appellant-company claims to have deposited one third of the enhanced value of compensation in the appeal preferred by it against the Award made by the Civil Court. The appeal is, according to the appellant, pending for disposal by the High Court.
5. In the meantime respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal who apparently did not seek any reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation filed Writ Petition No.22875 of 1999 challenging the validity of the Award made by the LAO/Collector on the ground that the same was beyond the period of two years stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act.
That contention found favour with the learned Single Judge of the High Court before whom the matter was argued. The Single Judge held that the Award having been passed beyond the period of limitation stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act, the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed Writ Appeal Nos.1315 of 2001 and 936 of 2006 before the Division Bench of the High Court who affirmed the view taken by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeals by its order dated 7th September, 2006. The appellant-company then appears to have filed review petition No.2901 of 2008 which too failed and was dismissed by the Division Bench by its order dated 21st August, 2009 as already indicated. The present appeals call in question the said two judgments and orders.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. S
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
