Back
2012 Supreme(Guj) 188
2012 (2) GCD 1788 (SC)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale
Mulchand Khanumal Khatri
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.
Civil Appeal No(s). 4990 of 2003—Decided on 27/03/2012
Point in Issue :
Whether award passed beyond two years of declaration under the Act is sustainable in the facts of the case.
Headnote:Head Note :
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) — Sections 4 and 6 — Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 — Section 11-A and proviso — Award Beyond two years of declaration — Sustainability — Finding of — Admittedly in the matter there was interim relief in favour of petitioners — High Court was of the view that unless and until the certified copy of judgment and order of vacating the interim order passed by Court was not brought to the notice of authority, it was not supposed to act and period of two years would start only from the date order was received by authority even though authority was represented by it’s Counsel before the Court — This view was not held correct — In view of explanation appended to Section 11-A which clarifies that the period during which any action or proceedings relating to acquisition taken pursuant to such deliration remains stayed and only such period shall be excluded — In the case the period commenced from 24.09.1984 when amendment in the Act was notified and remained suspended till 11.01.1996 when order vacating the interim relief was passed — The Dy. Collector made the award on 31.08.1998 which is clearly beyond the period of two years therefore not valid and entire acquisition proceeding is invalidated.
Held :
Section 11A mandates that an award shall be made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration. The non-adherence to this period results in entire acquisition proceedings being lapsed. The proviso that follows Sub-section (1) states that where the declaration under Section 6 has been published before the commencement of the Amendment Act the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. The Explanation appended to Section 11A clarifies that the period during which any action or proceeding relating to acquisition taken pursuant to such declaration remains stayed by an order of the court, such period shall be excluded. [Para 9]
The stay order of the High Court remained operative for the period September 24, 1984 to January 11, 1996. The question is, whether Section 11A of the Act permits exclusion of time that was taken in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the period from the date the certified copy was obtained and it was brought to the notice of the authority. [Para 10]
The legislature wherever it considered necessary incorporated by express words the rule incorporated in Section 12 of the Limitation Act. It has done so expressly in Section 28-A of the Act while it has consciously not incorporated this rule in Section 11-A even while providing for exclusion of time under the Explanation. The intendment of the legislature is therefore unambiguous and does not permit the court to read words into Section 11-A of the Act so as to enable it to read Section 12 of the Limitation Act into Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.” [Para 11. 56.]
Court hold as Court must, that the award having not been made within the period prescribed in Section 11A of the Act, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the appellant’s land has lapsed. The High Court was clearly in error in excluding the period from January 11, 1996 to September 5, 1997. This period cannot be excluded under explanation appended to Section 11A of the Act. [Para 13]
Law Laid Down :
A Court is not permitted to read into Section 11A of the Act a provision for exclusion of time taken to obtain — Certified copy of the judgment and order.
R.M . Lodha, J.—The judgment and order dated December 26, 2002 passed by the Gujarat High Court is under challenge in this Appeal by special leave.
2. The appellant claims to be joint owner of the land being Survey No. 11430 admeasuring 34 sq. mtr. at Palanpur, Gujarat. On April 1, 1980, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) that proposed acquisition of the appellant’s land and some other land for the public purpose, namely, construction of Palanpur City and taluka Police Station. The said notification was published in the Government Gazette on January 8, 1981. Later on, Section 4 notification was revised and published in the Official Gazette on September 22, 1983. The declaration under Section 6 was published on January 5, 1984. The appellant challenged the acquisition of his land through the above notifications in a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court. An interim relief in the above matter was granted on April 18, 1984.
3. The Act was amended on September 24, 1984 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Amendment Act’) whereby Section 11A was brought in the statute book.
4. The Special Civil Application filed by the appellant was dismissed on January 11, 1996. The Dy. Collector made the award on August 31, 1998.
5. Before the High Court, inter alia, the argument was canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the award having been passed beyond two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6, by virtue of Section 11A of the Act, the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The High Court, however, repelled the above argument and held as follows:
“The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that their earlier petitions were dismissed and the stay granted earlier stood vacated by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.1.96. Therefore, the Authority was supposed to declare the Award within a period of 2 years from that day i.e. 11.1.96. The said period would expire on January 10, 1998 whereas Award under Section 11 came to be passed only in August, 1998 which is admittedly after a period of 2 years. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench of this Court earlier dismissed their writ petitions on 11.1.96 and vacated the interim relief, but the vacation of interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners must be brought to the notice of the concerned Authority. Merely because they were represented through their counsel before the court would not be sufficient. Unless and until certified copy of the said judgment and order passed by the court is brought to the notice of the Authority, the Authority is not supposed to act. The period of 2 years would start only from the date of the notice.
In reply affidavit it has been clearly stated that the copy of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 11.1.96 was received by them only 5.9.97. In that view of the matter, admittedly the Award dated 31.8.98 passed u/s 11 of the Act was within a period of 2 years.”
6. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the High Court was of the view that unless and until certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the court was brought to the notice of the authority, the authority was not supposed to act and the period of two years under Section 11A of the Act would start only from the date of such notice and as the copy of the judgment and order passed by the High Court on January 11, 1996 was received by the competent authority on September 5, 1997, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the entire period from January 11, 1996 to September 5, 1997.
7. We are unable to accept the view of the High Court.
8. Section 11A of the Act reads as under: —
11A. Period within which an award shall be made.—
(1) The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, th
