The absence of a stay order after 2010 meant that the appellant's contention regarding the prevention of the award's passing was without merit.

Headnote:
Stay Order - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in the contention that the stay order prevented the award from being passed within the time permitted under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant claimed that the award could not be passed due to the operation of a stay order, but the court found that there was no stay after 2010.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the stay order did not prevent the award from being passed within the time permitted under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues: Interpretation of the effect of a stay order on the passing of an award under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the absence of a stay after 2010 meant that there was no merit in the appellant's contention that the stay order prevented the award from being passed within the specified time.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

JUDGMENT :

KURIAN, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award could not be passed on account of the operation of stay. Apparently, there is no stay after 2010. If that be so, there is no merit in the contention taken by the appellant that the stay order granted by the Court prevented the award being passed within the time permitted under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document