Piecemeal acquisition and multiple awards are permissible under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in certain circumstances, such as when the land belongs to different persons or when the acquisition proceedings are stayed by a competent court and subsequently dissolved.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated April 21, 1971. A rule nisi was obtained by the appellant for quashing an Award relating to acquisition of the appellant's land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereafter referred to as the Act. The appellant purchased some land including a tank at Honvrah and set up a Factory on this land. The Howrah Improvement Trust initiated proceedings for acquisition of the appellant's hinds which were included in C. S. Plots Nos. 1296. part of 1297 and 1298 for an improvement scheme of that locality in Howrah. Of these plots, plot No. 1296 contains a tank. The appellant filed claims in respect of the plots and an award was made in respect of plot No. 1297 (part) and nlot No. 1298 on March 26, 1966. Possession of the plots was taken on March 30, 1966, by the Collector. Thereafter, another award was made on August 19, 1966, with respect to plot No. 1296 which was a tank. On August 24, 1966, the Collector's representative came to take possession of the tank, but the appellant refused to give possession and filed a petition before the Collector asking that possession should not be taken as the award was illegal. On September 1, 1966, the appellant obtained a rule nisi on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was discharged by the judgment and order under appeal.

( 2 ) MR. Gupta appearing for the appellant contended before us, as he did also in the trial Court, that piecemeal acquisition or two or more awards in respect of one acquisition could not be made. It appears, however, that the award in respect of the plot No. 1296 which contains a tank was delayed by the conduct of the appellant itself. In the first place, it wanted total exclusion of the tank as it needed the water for the purpose of its factory. In the second place, the appellant claimed compensation of Rupees One Lac for severance and injurious affection under Section 23 of the Act. It is also to be noticed that the appellant has withdrawn the compensation awarded in respect of the acquisition of plots Nos. 1298 and 1297 (part ). It has therefore affirmed, adopted and ac- cepted the benefit under the acquisition proceedings. Mr. Gupta however, submitted, relying upon a Bench decision of this Court (Corpn. of Calcutta v. Omeda Khatun) that a piecemeal award could not be made. This decision, to our mind, is no authority for any such proposition. Lahiri, J. recognised that a separate award in certain cases could be made, namely, where the land belonged to different persons and where the acquisition proceedings were stayed by an order of a competent Court which was subsequently dissolved. To our mind, the instances men- tinned in the judgment are not exhaustive as was made clear by Chnkrabarti, C. J. I shall revert to this decision later.

( 3 ) IN a case, such as this, where the party affected prays for exemption of a plot from acquisition on the ground of necessity and subsequently claims a larger compensation for the same plot, we think that there is sufficient justification for making a separate award for that plot. Furthermore, the acquisition proceedings being one, and the appellant having withdrawn the compensation awarded in respect of two of the plots, it cannot be allowed to turn round and challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground that a separate award cannot be made in respect of one of the plots, though it was itself responsible for the situation which it had brought about.

( 4 ) TURNING now to the facts in this case, it appears that the appellant filed a statement under Section 9 of the Act. In paragraph 6 of this statement, it claimed that the tank in plot No. 1296 was the main source of supply of water, and that huge quantity of water was necessary for the running of the factory, and this water came from the tank. It claimed market value of land measuring 1. 31 Acre at Rs. 3,00,000/- per Acre. It also claimed damages for severance and injurious affectio