Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.Y. EQBAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
B. Gurubackiam & Another
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others
Writ Appeal Nos. 1109 OF 2009 & 1909 to 1913 of 2009, 265 to 268, 214 to 218 of 2010, & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On :Decided on : 10-12-2010
Land Acquisition Act - Delay in passing the award - Section 11-A
Fact of the Case:
The appellants-writ petitioners challenged the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground of delay in passing the award, claiming that the acquisition proceedings lapsed due to the award not being made within two years from the date of declaration.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the relevant dates and events, including interim orders and final orders, and held that the impugned award was not hit by the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act, consequently dismissing all the writ petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the award was passed within the statutory period of limitation of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which sets a time limit of two years from the date of declaration for passing the award. The court also discussed the applicability of the proviso and explanation to Section 11-A, which exclude the period of any action or proceeding stayed by a court from the computation of the two-year period.
Final Decision: The court held that the impugned award was not barred by Section 11-A of the Act, as it was passed within two years from the date when the Supreme Court finally allowed the appeal and restored the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 10th December, 2008 passed in a batch of writ petitions whereby the learned single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions holding that the impugned award challenged in the writ petitions are not hit by the proviso to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
3. The appellants-writ petitioners filed the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent relating to Award No.1/97, dated 31.10.1997 and quash the said award relating to the respective appellants’ lands in Survey Nos. 395 part and 398 part (in all 0.95 acres) (W.P.No. 5033 of 1998); S.Nos. 388 Part and 389 part (33 cents) (W.P.No.5020 of 1998; S.Nos. 390 part and 400 part (96 cents) (W.P.No.5021 of 1998); S.No.400 part (24 cents) (W.P.No.5029 of 1998); S.No.389 part (33 cents) (W.P.No.5030 of 1998); S.No.401 part (49 cents) (W.P.No.5031 of 1998); S.No.395 part (10 cents) W.P.No.5032 of 1998); S.No.399 part (49 cents) W.P.No.5035 of 1998); S.No.391 part (49 cents) W.P.No.5037 of 1998; S.No.394 part (49 cents) (W.P.No. 5038 of 1998); S.Nos.389 part and 394 part measuring an extent of 33 cents and 49 cents respectively (W.P.No.5022 of 1998); S.Nos. 388 part, 392 part and 401 part (in all 1.44 acres) (W.P.No.5024 of 1998); S.Nos. 391 part and 400 part (98 cents) (W.P.No.5027 of 1998); S.Nos. 389 part, 394 part, 399 part (1 acre 43 cents) (W.P.No.5028 of 1998) & S.No.390 part (49 cents) (W.P.No.5034 of 1998).
4. It appears that these batch of writ petitions were filed by the subsequent purchasers in respect of the lands in various survey numbers challenging the said award No.1/97 claiming to be in possession of the lands said to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It reveals from the record that those writ petitions were admitted on 17.4.1998, and interim orders were passed. However, those writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.01.2002. Thereafter, on applications being filed by the petitioners-appellants for restoration of the writ petitions, the same were restored to file by order dated 24.3.2007 and thereafter were heard on merits.
5. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant, are that the petitioners-appellants purchased the lands from the original owners namely, P.M.Sundaram and four others some time in the year 1995. It further reveals that before the appellants purchased the lands in the year 1995, Section 4(1) notification was published on 11.6.1975 and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held. In the said enquiry, the vendors of the appellants filed objections, which were ultimately rejected and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 9.6.1978, as also in the year 1980.
6. The writ petitioners-appellants mainly challenged the award before the learned single Judge on the ground of delay in passing the award. It was contended that since the award was not made within two years from the date of declaration, the acquisition proceedings lapsed, and therefore, the award is non-est in law.
7. The learned single Judge in paragraph-9 of the judgment has mentioned the relevant dates and chronology of events, which is reproduced herein below: -
8. After taking into consideration, the interim order passed in the earlier writ petitions and also the final order passed by the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge held that the impugned award is not hit by the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act. Consequently, all the writ petitions were dismissed. Hence, these appeals.
9. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in all the appeals assailed the impugned judgment as being illegal, contrary to law ap
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
