PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHARAN PAL SINGH & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1995
BENCH:
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCALE (7)310
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENTK.Venkataswami, J.
Leave granted.
By the impugned orders dated 11.10.1990, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has held that part of the land acquisition proceedings has lapsed for non-compliance of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which requires passing of an award within 2 years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
The appellant, State Government, issued notices under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 1.6.1982 and 17.8.1983 respectively to acquire certain lands. Subsequently, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.3.1985. The respondents challenged the award contending that the award was not in conformity with Section 11 of the Act inasmuch as the award has determined the compensation for the land only and the amount of compensation regarding the superstructure and trees that were standing on such lands was left to be decided separately. The appellant herein (respondent before the High Court) in its written statement took a stand in the following terms:
"The award is complete with respect of
the land. It was specifically mentioned
therein that for the structures and
trees the award will be announced
separately, because the assessment for
the structures and trees standing
thereon had not been received from the
respective departments."
However, the High Court has accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents herein (petitioners before the High Court) and held as follows:
"The Land Acquisition Collector made the
award on March 25, 1985 relating to the
land and not for the super-structures
and trees standing thereon. The award
rendered by the Land Acquisition
Collector was not the one envisaged
under Section 11 of the Act. The same
envisages the award for the Unit,
namely, the land, buildings and super-
structure and standing crops and trees
thereon. The acquisition proceedings
would lapse in so far as the award
relates to that portion of the acquired
land on which the super-structures and
trees were standing on the date the
award has been made."
Aggrieved by the above orders of the High Court the present appeals are filed.
An identical issue came up before this Court in Judgment Today 1995 (8) SC 599 Mohanji & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others wherein it was held on 4.8.1995 as follows :
"A perusal of the award dated
23.9.1986 leaves no doubt that the
compensation awarded therein is for the
entire land measuring 0.99 acres bearing
Plot No.1311 belonging to the appellants
which was acquired in the proceedings.
It also appears from the award that the
valuation report which had been sought
from the Public Works Department had not
been received and, therefore, the Land
Acquisition Officer contemplated
determination of compensation for the
building in addition to the compensation
awarded for the entire land being made
on a subsequent date after the expiry of
the specified period of two years under
Section 11 of the Act. The question is
whether in these circumstances it can be
said that no award had been made under
Section 11 of the Act in the proceeding
for the acquisition of the land?
It is no doubt true that the entire
award which is contemplated under
Section 11 of the Act by virtue of the
prescription in Section 11A has to be
made within the period of two years
failing which the entire proceeding
shall lapse. The question is whether it
can be said in the present case that no
award has been made under Section 11 of
the Act in this proceedings? In our view
it cannot be said that no award under
Section 11 has been made for the land
acquired. Admittedly, compensation has
been determined in the award so made for
the entire area of 0.99 acres. In view
of the fact that no piecemeal award by
making a subsequent award after the
expiry of the period of two years is
contemplated in law, the award dated
23.9.1986 must be construed as the whole
award made under Section 11 awarding
compensation for the entire area of 0.99
acres with no compensation was awarded
for the building. The appellants, had
the right to claim compensation for the
building by seeking a reference under
Section 18 of the Act treating the award
as one in which compensation had been
determined and awarded only for the
entire land measuring 0.99 acres but no
compensation was awarded for the
building therein. The appellants had the
remedy to claim compensation for the
building in accordance with law treating
the award made as not awarding any
compensation for the building. That is,
however, a different matter and it does
not require any further consideration in
this context. It is sufficient to say
‘that the award dated 23.9.1986 made
within the period specified in Section
11A of the Act must be construed as an
award under Section 11 in the
proceedings for acquisition of the
appellants’ land bearing Plot No. 1311
having a total area of 0.99 acres. The
contention that the entire proceedings
for acquisition of the land has lapsed
by virtue of Section 11A cannot,
therefore, be accepted."
The ratio as extracted above squarely applies to the facts of this case. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned award dated 25th March, 1985 within the period specified in Section 11A of the Act must be construed as an award under Section 11 in the proceedings for the acquisition of the lands in question and the contentions to the contrary cannot be sustained. However, we leave open the rights of the respondents to claim compensation for the buildings/trees in accordance with law treating the award already made as one not awarding any compensation for the buildings/trees.
In the result, the appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court under appeal are set aside. No costs. 5871