PETITIONER:
L.N. VENKATESAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
These special leave petitions arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the madras High Court, made on July 19, 1996 in W. M.P. No. 5231/88. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 11.6.1975. Declaration under Section 6 was published on March 3, 1978. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 7645/86 an obtained stay of dispossession. Since the award was not made within two years under Section 11-A, he filed another writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 3450/88. The High Court holding that the bar of proviso does not attracts the operation of the stay obtained by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. Therefore, the acquisition dows not stand lapsed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the interim stay granted was "not to dispossess" the petitioner and there is no impediment for authorities to proceed further in passing the award. We find no force in the contention.
Section 11-A of the Act which reads as follows:
"11-A. Period within which an award
shall be made. 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, 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 stayed by an order
of a Court shall be excluded."
The principle laid down by this Court in Yusufbhai Noormohamed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1991 SC 2153] is that the owner of the land or a person, who is interested in the land and wants to take advantage of Section 11-A of the Act, must not have obtained an interim order, against the Land Acquisition officer, of whatsoever nature. The relevant portion of the Said judgment, which is contained in paragraph 8 is as follows:-
"The said explanation is in the
widest possible terms and, in our
opinion, there is no warrant for
limiting the action or proceedings
referred to in the Explanation to
actions or proceedings, proceeding
the making of the award under
Section 11 of the said Act. In the
first place, as held by the learned
single judge himself where the case
is covered by Section 17, the
possession can be taken before an
award is made and we see no reason
why the aforesaid expression in the
Explanation should be given a
different meaning depending upon
whether the case is covered by
Section 17 or otherwise. On the
other hand, it appears to us that
the Explanation is intended to
confer a benefit on a land-holder
whose land is acquired after the
declaration under. Section is made
in cases covered by the
explanation. The benefit is that
the award must be made within a
period of two years of declaration,
failing which the acquisition
proceedings would lapse and the
land would revert to the Land-
holder. In order to get the benefit
of the said provision, what is
required, is that the land-holder
who seeks the benefit must not have
obtained any order from a court
restraining any action or
proceeding in pursuance of the
declaration under Section 6 of the
said Act so that the Explanation
covers only the cases of those
land-holders who do not obtain any
order from a court which would
delay or prevent the making of the
award or taking possession of the
land acquired. In our opinion, the
Gujarat High Court was right tin
taking a similar view in the
impugned judgment."
It is not in dispute in this case that the petitioner filed W.P. No.10351/1982, seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings in question, in respect of the remaining area of 6 acres comprised in S.No. 232/1C in Kottivakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk and obtained an interim order which disabled the Land Acquisition Officer, even though it related to a portion of the survey number in question, to proceed in the matter, much less to pass an Award. The said writ petition was allowed on 8.1.1988. Acquisition, in so far as it related to the extent of 6 acres, comprised in the survey No. referred to above was quashed. Even during the pendency of W.P. No. 10351/1982, petitioner had filed another writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 7645/1986 and obtained an interim order. W.P. No. 7645/1986 related to the remaining portion of 4-33 acres and that writ petition is heard along with this writ petition. However, we pass a separate order in that writ petition. The interim order obtained in W.P. No. 7645/1986 disabling the land Acquisition officer to obtain possession of the land in question, is still in operation. Therefore, from the year 1982 till today, there has been an interim order passed in one of the writ petitions referred to above, operating against the Land Acquisition officer, disabling him to take possession of the land.
Under the circumstances, declaration under Section 6 does not get lapsed and consequently notification under section 4(1) also does not lapse.
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.