The exclusion of the period during which there was a stay over the action or proceeding by a court of law in computing the statutory period for passing an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondent authorities to compute the compensation amount of the petitioners' land on the basis of the market value fixed by the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and as well as the West Bengal Central Valuation Board. The vires of several provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 1894 Act') was also challenged and a declaration that such provisions are ultra vires, unconstitutional and void was also made.

2. However, in course of hearing of the writ petition, Mrs. Maity did not press the issue insofar as the challenge to the provisions of the 1894 Act is concerned but restricted her submission only to the extent that the acquisition proceeding stood vitiated for not passing the award within the statutory period of two years and also that the acquisition proceeding was not concluded due to not taking over physical possession of the property in question. Though the writ petition was originally filed by 77 writ petitioners and upon the death of some of the writ petitioners their heirs were substituted but Mrs. Maity in course of hearing only canvassed the case of the petitioner no. 1 and 2.

3. Since the issue relating to vires of certain provisions of the 1894 Act was not pressed at the time of hearing, the prayer for declaration that such provisions are ultra vires is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. Thus, the only issue that remains to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to other reliefs claimed in the writ petition.

4. Several plots of land within Mouja Bhabanipur, JL No. 150 under Police Station Sutahata in the District of Midnapur were the subject matter of acquisition of land for establishment of urban complex at Haldia inter alia giving rise to land acquisition case nos. 77 and 78 of 1997-1998.

5. The following facts are not in dispute-

(i) Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 25.04.1997.

(ii) Declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published on 11.08.1997.

(iii) Award under Section 11 of the said Act was declared on 16.04.2001 in LA Case no. 78 of 1997-98.

(iv) Award was declared under Section 11 of the said act on 17.04.2001 in LA Case no. 77 of 1997-1998.

6. The main thrust of the argument of Mrs. Maity, learned advocate for the petitioner is that the award was declared beyond the time limit specified under Section 11A of the 1894 Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land stood lapsed. Mrs. Maity further submitted that the possession of the disputed lands was not taken over and therefore the lands in question did not vest to the State.

7. Mr. Mahata learned advocate for the State submitted that several writ petitions were filed before this Hon'ble Court challenging the said land acquisition proceedings. He further submitted that interim orders were passed by this Court in one of such writ petitions on 12.05.1998 restraining the state respondents from proceeding any further with the acquisition proceedings and the state respondents were also restrained from interfering with the right, title and possession in respect of property in question. He further submitted that the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in case of the said acquisition proceeding was also quashed by this Court in WP No. 3078 of 1998. On a review being filed from an order passed in WP 3078 of 1998, the order quashing the said notification was recalled and the respondent authority was allowed to proceed in terms of Section 9 of 1894 Act and pass the award with regard to the properties in question. He, thus, submitted that if the period during which the state respondents were restrained from proceeding with the acquisition proceedings is excluded, the award cannot be said to have been passed beyond the time limit specified in the said statute.

8. The learned advocates for the Municipality and the Haldia Developme