The delay in challenging acquisition proceedings and the impact on third-party rights can weigh against quashing the proceedings, even if the award has been passed beyond the stipulated period.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the entire acquisition proceedings has lapsed in view of the award dated 28.03.2003 in his award No.Na.Ka.A1/12674/89, issued by the second respondent in respect of Ramanathapuram Taluk, Sakkarakottai Village Survey No.155/1 and etc., Ramanathapuram Taluk an extent of one acre and 40 cents of the land acquired for Tamil Nadu Housing Board after the expiry of two years in violation of Section 11(A) of the Act.)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Declaration to declare that the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed in view of the award dated 28.03.2003 passed by the second respondent herein in respect of Ramanathapuram Taluk, Sakkarakottai Village relating to S.No.155/1 and others in Ramanathapuram Taluk for an extent of 1 acre and 40 cents of land acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board after the expiry of two years, in violation of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. The petitioners have contended that they are the owners of the property and they have purchased the plot out of a layout approved by the local panchayat in S.No.155/1. According to the petitioners, from the date of purchase, they are in possession of the property.

3. The first respondent had issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 23.12.1992. Though the landlords submitted their objections in an enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the said objections were rejected and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 11.02.1994. According to the petitioners, a batch of writ petitions were filed by some of the owners challenging the declaration. Those writ petitions were dismissed on 20.04.2001 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Though initially an order of interim stay was granted, the writ appeals were also ultimately dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on various dates in March, April and June 2001.

4. The petitioners have further contended that thereafter, an award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 28.03.2003. They have further contended that as per Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the award has to be passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. If no award is made within the said period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. They have further contended that in the present case, though interim orders were vacated by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on various dates, the awards were passed beyond the period of two years from the date declaration. They have further contended that as far as the petitioners are concerned, they have not challenged the declaration and hence, no stay order was operating as against the second respondent herein from passing an award. Hence, the award passed under Section 11 of the Act on 28.03.2003 is clearly beyond the period of two years from 11.02.1994, on which date, the declaration was issued. On the basis of the above said facts, the petitioners have sought for a prayer for declaration that the entire acquisition proceedings got lapsed in view of the fact that the award has not been passed within a period of two years from the date of declaration.

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board/third respondent had contended that the two year period has to be calculated only from the date on which, the writ appeals were disposed of. In the present case, the writ appeals have been disposed of in the month of March, April and June 2001 and the award has been passed on 28.03.2003 and the same is well within the period of two years from the said date.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent had further contended that the present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of ten years from the date of