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

1994 Supreme(AP) 416

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY
Madhava Rao Gandhe – Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer, quli Qutubshah Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad – Respondent


B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition arises under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Hitherto there was no time limit for passing the Award. But, by amendment Act 68 of 1984, which came into effect from 24th September, 1984 section 11-A was incorporated in the Act, which obligates the acquisitioning authority to pass the Award within two years from the date of draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. If the Award is not passed within two years as mentioned above, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act stands extinguished. But, there is one exception to the provision. If urgency clause is invoked, then Section 11 -A of the Act will not operate.

( 2 ) MS. A. P. Lakshmi, the learned counsel for the respondent, admits that no urgency clause was invoked and that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held and then only the draft declaration under section 6 of the Act was published. As such, section 11-A of the Act operates. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published locally on 9-4-1992. Reckoning two years from that date and even excluding 9-4-1992, the award ought to have been passed


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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top