The timing of the final declaration and the exclusion of the period of status quo in calculating the two-year period under Section 11A of the Act are crucial legal points established in the judgment.

ORDER :

Premises No.32A, Brabourne Road, Kolkata, which had been requisitioned for housing the Headquarters of Traffic Police Guard in the year 1958 was derequisitioned on 25.3.1992. The possession of the property continued with the police department and it was proposed to be acquired and Preliminary Notification dated 28.9.1994 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (’Act’ for short). The said acquisition proceedings lapsed as the final declaration was not issued within one year. Subsequently another preliminary notification dated 4.3.1996 was issued under section 4(1) of the Act. The said notification was published in the State Gazette dated 25.3.1996. The notification was published in two newspapers circulating in the locality on 9.3.1996 and 10.3.1996. As there was a misprint in the date of the Gazette, an erratum notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 1.4.1997. Public Notice of the substance of the said notification was published in the locality on 30.6.1997. The final declaration dated 11.8.1997 under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 12.8.1997.

2. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owners of property filed Civil Suit No.235 of 1996 in the Calcutta High Court against the State of West Bengal on 22.8.1996 seeking possession of the said property and mesne profits. In the said Suit, the High Court issued an interim order dated 25.9.1997 directing the parties to maintain status quo as on that date. Ultimately, the Suit was decreed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 9.9.1998, with a direction to the defendant in the suit to deliver possession and declaring the final Notification gazetted on 12.8.1997, issued under section 6 of the Act to be invalid. The learned Single Judge held that the final declaration published on 12.8.1997 was made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification and therefore it was invalid. The State filed an appeal against the said judgment and in the said appeal a Division Bench of the High Court granted interim stay of the judgment dated 9.9.1998 of the learned single Judge, on 15.2.1999. Ultimately, the Division Bench allowed the appeal by judgment dated 29.7.1999 affirming the finding that appellant was bound to deliver possession, but however holding that the final declaration published on 12.8.1997 under Section 6 of the Act was valid. The appellants issued a notice under section 9 and 10 of the Act on 20.9.1999. The Award was made on 24.2.2000. Possession of the premises was taken under section 16 of the Act on 24.2.2003.

3. The acquisition was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 by filing a writ petition (W.P. No.1225 of 2000), contending that (i) the final notification under section 6 of the Act made more than one year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification was invalid; and (ii) the acquisition had lapsed under section 11A of the Act, as award was no made within two years of publication of the declaration. A learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 18.11.2002, dismissed the writ petition. Respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal before the appellate Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The appellate Bench, by the impugned judgment dated 2.9.2003, allowed the appeal on the following two grounds:

(i) The final declaration under Section 6 of the Act was invalid, as it was published after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; and

(ii) The Award dated 24.2.2000 by the Land Acquisition Officer was passed beyond a period of two years from the date of the publication of the final declaration dated 11.8.1997 and consequently, the acquisition lapsed.

4. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave. The appellants have challenged both the findings of the Division Bench. Therefore, two questions arise for our consideration.

(i) Whether the final declaration was made after the expiry of o