Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, M.R. SHAH, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra and others – Appellants
Versus
M/s Moti Ratan Estate and another – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6996 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23921 of 2018) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6998 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos.21390 of 2019) Diary No. 3189/2019 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6997 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos. 6194 of 2019)
Decided On : 04-09-2019
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Non-declaration of award under Section 11 of the Act within a period of two years from date of declaration under Section 6 of Act – Any order of stay in one or other matter if passed by Court of law, which either prohibits or prevents State authorities from passing of an award, such a period of stay of action/proceedings deserves to be excluded while computing statutory period of two years in passing of an award by authority under Section 11 of Act – When scheme of acquisition is one, interim stay granted in respect of one pocket of land would operate even with respect to other pockets of land – In such a situation authorities are justified in not proceeding with acquisition proceedings and acquisition proceedings would not lapse – Interim order of stay granted in respect of one of land owners would have a complete restraint for authorities to proceed further – When stay has been granted in one matter and where scheme was one, authorities were justified to stay their hands – If there is any stay over action or proceeding by a Court of law, in one or other matter arising from selfsame acquisition proceedings in reference to Section 4 followed with Section 6 of Act, authorities are said to be justified in given facts and circumstances to stay their hands and await decision of Court and such a period during which there is a stay over action or proceeding by a Court of law in a matter, that has to be excluded for all practical purposes, in computing statutory period of two years in passing of award under Section 11 of Act – High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceedings on the ground that same have lapsed – Impugned judgments and orders passed by High Court quashed and set aside. (Paras 7.5, 7.6, 7.8, 8 and 9)
Facts of Case:
High Court has allowed writ petitions and has quashed the entire acquisition proceedings with respect to the acquired lands solely on the ground that acquisition has lapsed as the awards under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not declared within a period of two years from he date of declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, State of Maharashtra and others have preferred present appeals.
Findings of Court:
In meeting out a complex situation, conclusion which emerges is that if there is any stay over the action or proceeding by a Court of law, in one or the other matter arising from the selfsame acquisition proceedings in reference to Section 4 followed with Section 6 of the Act, the authorities are said to be justified in the given facts and circumstances to stay their hands and await the decision of the Court and such a period during which there is a stay over the action or proceeding by a Court of law in a matter, that has to be excluded for all practical purposes, in computing the statutory period of two years in passing of an award under Section 11 of the Act.
Result : Writ Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 3189 of 2019. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
2. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders dated 24.03.2017 and 27.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition Nos. 7867 of 2012, 10894 of 2016 and 9088 of 2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed the entire acquisition proceedings with respect to the acquired lands solely on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed as the awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were not declared within a period of two years from the date of declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, the State of Maharashtra and others have preferred the present appeals.
3.1 For the sake of convenience, the facts in the appeal arising out of special leave petition No. 23921 of 2018 arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 7867 of 2012 are considered as the facts in other two appeals are identical.
4. That the acquired land in question is situated within the local limits of village Asarjan, Taluka and District Nanded. That the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and published in the Official Gazette on 01.03.2012. The same was published at Village Chawdi Asarjan by beating of drums on 12.04.2012. That thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 07.02.2013 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published at Village Chawdi Asarjan by beating of drums on 13.02.2013.
4.1 That the original land owners challenged the acquisition and the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 01.03.2012 by filing Writ Petition No. 7867 of 2012 on 09.05.2012. That vide order dated 11.10.2013, the High Court directed that the possession of the original writ petitioners shall not be disturbed. The other land owners, whose lands were acquired for the very project and under the very Section 4 notification dated 01.03.2012, also challenged the acquisition proceedings and Section 4 notification with respect to their lands by filing Writ Petition Nos. 3051 of 2013 and 3159 of 2013. In those writ petitions also the High Court granted stay to the acquisition proceedings vide order dated 12.11.2013. It appears that by order dated 20.11.2013, the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 3051 of 2013 and 3159 of 2013 modified the earlier interim order and directed that till the next date, final award shall not be declared. However, the State was permitted to move an application seeking leave of the Court to declare the award, if the award is ready. That the aforesaid two writ petitions came to be disposed of vide order dated 08.01.2014. However, the High Court continued the interim order dated 20.11.2013 by 12 weeks. The 12 weeks period got over on 02.04.2014. That thereafter the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 08.05.2015 with respect to the acquired lands in question, i.e., in the case of Writ Petition No. 7867 of 2012. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the acquisition was challenged on number of grounds. However, at the time of hearing of Writ Petition No. 7867 of 2012, it was submitted that the entire acquisition has been lapsed as the award was not declared within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of the State that in view of the pending proceedings challenging the acquisition as well as in view of the interim stay granted by the High Court directing that the possession of the acquired land shall not be disturbed and in view of the specific stay order granted in Writ Petition Nos. 3051 of 2013 and 3159 of 2013 r
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
