The time limit for making an award under S.11-A of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act is not fatal to the acquisition proceeding, and the purpose and distinction of S.11-A must be considered in its interpretation.

1. A piece of land measuring ten and a half cents situated at Kozhippathi Village of Chittur Taluk, Palghat District, State of Kerala originally belonged to Indrani, wife of the petitioner and it now belongs to the petitioner. Under a preliminary notification issued under S.3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act on 24-2-1981 the said piece of land along with some other lands was proposed to be acquired for a certain public purpose. Both Indrani and the petitioner filed objection to the proposed acquisition. After overruling the objections the State Government published a declaration under S.6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act on 19-1-1984. On 24-9-1984 the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 passed by Parliament came into force in the State of Kerala and some other parts of India to which it applies. By S.9 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 a new section, i.e., S.11-A was introduced into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which reads thus:

11-A. Period within which an award shall be made The Collector shall make an award under S.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, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:

Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.

Explanation In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stated by an order of a Court shall be excluded."

The Land Acquisition Officer, i.e., the Sub-Collector of Palghat who was exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act made an award in respect of the land of the petitioner on 23-9-1986 which was filed in the office of the Collector on 21-9-1986. The notice of the award was served on the petitioner on 30-9-1986. The petitioner and his wife challenged the acquisition proceeding in a petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 1536 of 1987. The learned Single Judge, who heard the said petition overruled the objections of the petitioner and his wife and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge the petitioner and bis wife preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court in W. A. No. 933 of 1987. The said Writ Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench the petitioner has filed this petition under Art.136 of the Constitution of India seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.

2. The two grounds on which the acquisition proceedings was challenged by the petitioner and his wife before the High Court were: (i) that the award not having been made within a period of two years from the date of the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, that is 24-9-1984, as required by the proviso to S.11-A of the Act, the acquisition proceeding should be deemed to have lapsed; and (ii) that the land acquisition proceeding was liable to be quashed on the ground that there was inordinate delay in making the award.

3. The contention of the petitioner and his wife before the High Court was that the notice of the award having been served on him on 30th September, 1986 it must be held that the award was actually made on 30th September, 1986 and since more than two years had elapsed from 24-9-1984, from the date on which the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into force by the time the notice of award was served on him, the acquisition proceeding should be declared as having lapsed by virtue of the proviso to S.11-A of the Act. In support of his contention the Petitioner relied u