Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by L. Rs vs State of U. P.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 6(2) and 11A - Publication of Declaration - Computation of limitation for making Award - The modes of publication prescribed under Section 6(2), which include publication in the Official Gazette, two daily newspapers, and public notice in the locality, are conjoint and cumulative; all such modes must be strictly resorted to. The "date of publication of the declaration" for the purpose of reckoning the two-year limitation period under Section 11A is the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice. If no award is made within this period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse, provided that the period during which any action is stayed by a court order is excluded in computing the two years. (Paras 15, 17, 22)

(B) Notice for possession vs. Publication of Declaration - A notice issued by authorities for the purpose of taking possession of land under Section 9 of the Act cannot be construed as the last mode of publication of the declaration under Section 6(2) for the purpose of calculating the limitation period under Section 11A. (Paras 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
Landowners challenged an award passed by a Collector, contending that it was made beyond the statutory period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The proceedings had been subject to a stay order by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court for several years. After the stay was lifted, the Collector passed the award. The High Court had dismissed the landowners' petitions, holding that a notice given by beat of drums in the locality constituted the last date of publication and that the award was therefore within the limitation period when excluding the stay duration.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the notice given by beat of drums was not a publication of the declaration under Section 6(2) but was instead a notice for taking possession of the land. The last valid date of publication of the declaration was the date it appeared in the local newspapers. Based on this date, and after excluding the period of the court-ordered stay, the award was passed after the expiry of the two-year limit prescribed under Section 11A.

Issues: Whether the award passed by the Collector was within the two-year statutory period from the date of the last publication of the declaration under Section 6(2) and whether the acquisition proceedings had consequently lapsed under Section 11A.

Ratio Decidendi: The limitation period for making an award under Section 11A must be counted from the last of the three mandatory modes of publication specified in Section 6(2). Because these modes are cumulative, the date of the final publication is the definitive starting point for the two-year clock. When the award is made beyond this period (excluding stayed time), the acquisition proceedings lapse completely.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to land acquisition award on ground that it was made beyond two-year limitation period under Section 11A of the Act. (Para 1 )

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

These appeals (being Civil Appeal Nos. 6099, 6100 and 6101 of 2001) are directed against a common judgment and order dated 28th February, 2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 31681/1998, 32856/1998 and 32857/1998 filed by the petitioners-appellants herein challenging the correctness and validity of the Award passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short "the Act"].

These appeals are taken up and heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

Facts necessary to understand and comprehend the controversy involved in these cases are briefly stated as under:-

The appellants are the owners/bhoomidars of different parcels of lands in village Dantal, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh [for short "U.P."]. As per the Zonal Development Plan, the lands of the appellants fall under Zone-IV. On 11.06.1985, the State of U.P. issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire 168 bighas of land including the land of the appellants for construction of residential/commercial buildings by the Meerut Development Authority (MDA) respondent No.3 herein under a Planned Development Scheme. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 13.6.1985. On 19.7.1985, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the local newspapers and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the newspapers on 25.07.1985. The substance of both the Notifications was

published in the local newspapers on 25.07.1985. The provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were also invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A has been dispensed with.The appellants and some more owners of the lands filed separate writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 1985 challenging the validity of the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act inter alia on the grounds that the lands of the owners had not been acquired for public purpose and that the action of the State Government in taking recourse to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Division Bench allowed the writ petitions in part vide order dated 14.01.1988 by holding that the substance of the two Notifications contemplated by Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act was given on the same day, i.e. on 25.07.1985 in the locality, therefore, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act would be invalid in terms of the amended provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act. Consequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was quashed.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellants and the MDA both had challenged the order of the High Court by special leave petitions in this Court in the year 1988. This Court granted leave in all the special leave petitions.

Civil Appeal No. 1828 of 1988 filed by the MDA was allowed by the Court vide judgment dated 19.09.1996. The appeals of the claimants including the appellants were dismissed. The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to pass the Awards within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court [see Meerut Development Authority v. Satbir Singh & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 462].

It appears from the record that thereafter the respondents herein had conducted a fresh survey of the lands and prepared a site plan marking the lands in different colours as per the nature and extent of the areas. On 20.10.1997, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in respect of 22 bighas 16 biswas and 12 biswansi of land and an area of 54 bighas 11 biswas and 16 biswansi was excluded from the acquisition including some portions of the lands of the appellants because some constructions were found having been raised over that extent of land by the people residing near and around the area and the MDA had declined to take possession of the constructed area. It is the case of the appellants that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 411

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

Judicial Analysis

2007 Supreme(SC) 411

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

Cases Referred (6)

Judicial Analysis