http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2013-2015 of 1999

PETITIONER: Smt. Bailamma @ Doddabailamma (Dead) and others

RESPONDENT: Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/2006

BENCH: B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 2016-2023 of 1999 Sri M. Kondandaraju and others                       \005 Appellants                         Versus The State of Karnataka and others                           \005Respondents      AND   Civil Appeal Nos. 2073-2077 of 2000 Smt. Muthamma etc. etc.                               \005 Appellants                         Versus State of Karnataka  and others                      \005Respondents

B.P. SINGH, J.

                These appeals by special leave are directed against the  Judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore  dated February 12, 1998 in Writ Appeal No.2079 of 1993, Writ  Appeal Nos.2080-2081 of 1993 and Writ Appeal Nos.2090-94 of  1993.  Civil Appeal Nos.2073-2077of 2000 are directed against the  judgment and order of the High Court dated September 21, 1999  dismissing the Writ Appeals following the judgment of the High  Court in the earlier batch of Writ Appeals.  The High Court by its  impugned judgment and order upheld the award made by the  Collector holding that the requirements of Section 11 and 11A of the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ’The Act’)  were met if the award was made and signed by the Collector and  approved by the Government within a period of two years from the  date of last publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act.  In  the instant case the Collector signed his award after an enquiry as  contemplated by the Act on March 13, 1990 and sent the same on the  same date for the approval of the Government.  The award was  approved by the Government on November 16, 1992, but after  excluding the period during which an order of stay operated against  the Government from acting pursuant to the declaration made under  Section 6 of the Act, the same was deemed to be approved within the  period of two years from the date of last publication of declaration  under Section 6 of the Act.  The contention urged on behalf of the  appellants herein, that after the approval of the Government the  Collector should have declared the award was repelled, since it was  found in the facts of the case that the award had already been signed  by the Collector and sent to the Government for approval.  To  appreciate the contentions urged before us it is necessary to narrate  the relevant facts of the case.

       A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act  dated August 11, 1987 was published in the Official Gazette on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

August 13, 1987.  Objections received from the owners of the lands  were considered by the Collector and rejected.  Thereafter, a  declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated June 30, 1988 was  published in the Official Gazette on July 1, 1988.  The last date of  publication of the aforesaid declaration in accordance with Section 6  of the Act was November 5, 1988.  In normal course, therefore, the  award should have been made before November 5, 1990.  However,  the Collector made his award on March 13, 1990 and after signing the  same sent the award to the Government for its approval.

       It appears that the Respondents- Society was apprehensive that  the Government may not approve the award within the statutory  period fixed by the Act and, therefore, it filed a writ petition on June  27, 1990 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the Government to  approve the award.  In the said writ petition an interim order was  made on June 29, 1990 staying the operation of the declaration dated  June 30, 1988 for a period of two weeks from the date of the order.   Subsequently, the stay was extended till further orders.  On February  7, 1991, the order of stay was modified only to the extent that it was  clarified that the order of stay shall not prevent the Government from  granting approval to the award, submitted to it by the Collector.  The  order of stay, however, continued to operate subject to the  clarification given, and other steps could not be taken till the order of  stay finally stood vacated on November 18, 1992.  It is only thereafter  that notice of the award could be given to the persons interested.     On  November 16, 1992 the Government granted approval to the award  submitted by the Collector.  On November 18, 1992 the Writ Petition  filed by the Respondents \026 Society was withdrawn, and thereafter the  order of stay finally stood vacated.  

       From the facts stated above, it would appear that an order of  stay operated against the Government from taking any further steps  pursuant to the declaration dated June 30, 1988 which included grant  of approval to the award of the Collector and its communication to the  persons interested and other steps to be taken under the Act, till  November 18, 1992.  It is the contention of the Respondents that in  computing the period of two years for making the award in  accordance with Section 11A of the Act the period during which the  stay order operated must be excluded.  The High Court has upheld this  contention and held that the award was approved within the period  prescribed by Section 11A of the Act.  

The award was challenged by the appellants herein contending  that there was nothing on record to indicate that after approval was  granted by the Government the Collector signed the award.  The  contention was that Section 11 read with Section 11A of the Act  provided that after the award is approved by the Government, the  Collector can make an award, meaning thereby, that after the award  submitted by the Collector is approved by the Government, the  Collector must formally sign the award as approved and inform the  parties concerned.  If he fails to do so within the period prescribed by  Section 11A of the Act the entire proceeding for the acquisition must  lapse.  The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition upheld  the contention of the respondents and quashed the acquisition  proceedings.  Appeals were preferred by the State of Karnataka and  other interested parties to the High Court which were initially placed  for disposal before a division bench of the High Court which referred  it to a larger bench since it appeared to the learned judges that an  earlier division bench judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition  No.4244 of 1989, which took the view that Section 11A will be  satisfied if approval is granted by the Government within the specified  period to the award made by the Collector, required re-consideration.   That is how the matter came up for hearing before a bench of three  learned judges of the High Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

       The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is that if a  declaration is published under Section 6 of the Act, the Collector is to  take an order for acquisition of the lands notified.   For this purpose,  the Collector is required to demarcate the lands proposed to be  acquired, get the same measured and a plan to be prepared as  required  to be done by Sections 7 and 8 of the Act.  Under Section 9 the  Collector is required to get published a public notice stating that the  Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to  compensation for all interested in such land may be made to him.  The  notice must enumerate the particulars mentioned in Sub-Section (2) of  Section 9 of the Act. The said notice must also be served on the  persons interested as provided in Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section  9.  After notices have been issued under Section 9 of the Act, the  Collector proceeds to enquire into all the matters specified in Section  11 of the Act.  Sections 11, 11A and 12 of the Act as amended by  Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 are crucial for deciding the  questions involved in these appeals.  They provide as follows :

"11.  Enquiry and award by Collector \026 (1)  On the  day so fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry  has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to  enquire into the objections (if any) which any person  interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under  section 9 to the measurements made under section 8,  and into the value of the land and at the date of the  publication of the notification under section 4, sub- section (1), and into the respective interests of the  persons claiming the compensation, and shall make an  award under his hand of \026

(i)     the true area of the land; (ii)    the compensation which in his opinion  should be allowed for the land; and (iii)   the apportionment of the said  compensation among all the persons  known or believed to be interested in the  land, of whom, or of whose claims, he  has information, whether or not they  have respectively appeared before him;

[Provided that no award shall be made by the  Collector under this sub-section without the previous  approval of the appropriate Government or of such  officer as the appropriate Government may authorize  in this behalf;

       Provided further that it shall be competent for  the Appropriate Government to direct that the  Collector may make such award without such  approval in such class of cases as the Appropriate  Government may specify in this behalf];

       [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in  sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the  Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in  the land who appeared before him have agreed in  writing on the matters to be included in the award of  the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by  the appropriate Government, he may, without making  further enquiry, make an award according to the terms  of such agreement.

(3)  The determination of compensation for any  land under sub-section (2) shall not, in anyway affect  the determination of compensation in respect of other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance  with the other provisions of this Act.

(4)  Notwithstanding anything contained in the  Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement   made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to  registration under that Act.

11A.  Period within which an award shall be made.  - (1)  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 \026 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].

12. Award of Collector when to be final  - (1)  Such  award shall be filed in the Collector’s office and shall,  except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive  evidence, as between the Collector and the persons  interested, whether they have respectively appeared  before the Collector or not, of the true area and value  of the land, and apportionment of the compensation  among the persons interested.

       (2)  The Collector shall give immediate notice  of his award to such of the persons interested as are  not present personally or by their representatives  when the award is made".

       Section 11 envisages that an enquiry may not be concluded on  the very first day and, therefore, authorizes the Collector to adjourn  the considerations of objections to any day fixed in the notice.   However, after considering the objections he is obliged to make an  award under his hand  regarding   (i)  the true area of the land; (ii) the  compensation which in his opinion should be allowed and (iii) the  apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested.                  The first proviso to Section 11 provides that an award shall not  be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the  appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate  Government may authorize.  Thus before an award can be said to have  been made it is mandatory that it must be approved by the  Government or the officer authorized in this behalf.

       Section 11A provides the period within which an award shall be  made.  It prescribes a period of two years from the date of publication  of declaration as the period within which an award must be made.  If  no award is made within that period the entire proceedings for the  acquisition of the land shall lapse.  The explanation to Section 11A  clarifies that in computing the period of two years, the period during

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

which action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the said  declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.   

Before we consider the main submission urged on behalf of the  appellants, we shall consider the submission urged by them that in the  instant case, the period during which the stay granted by the High  Court operated can not be excluded because the order of stay had been  obtained by the Society itself and, therefore, it can not  take advantage  of the stay granted by the High Court.  The submission must be  rejected.  The order of stay passed on 29.6.90  by the High Court was  in the following terms :-

"Operation of the declaration dated 30.6.1988 issued  by the respondent No.1 in No. RD 182 AQB 84  (Annexure-A to the W.P.) be and the same is hereby  stayed, for a period of two weeks from 29.6.1990".

       As noticed earlier, the operation of the order of stay was  continued until further orders and was ultimately modified by an order  of February 7, 1991 which is as follows :-                  "Interim order of stay granted by this Court on  29.6.90 and continued by order dated 10.7.1990 shall  not prevent the Government in giving approval to the  draft Award which is said to be pending  considerations before the Government".

       A mere reading of the order of stay of June 29, 1990 makes it  abundantly clear that the operation of the declaration made under  Section 6 of the Act was itself stayed, that is to say, as if no  declaration has been made under Section 6 of the Act.  Such being the  position no steps required to be taken under the Act after publication  of the declaration under Section 6 could be taken either by the  Collector or by the Government.  The Government was, therefore,  prevented from approving the award submitted to it by the collector.   Thus, it was on account of the order of stay passed by the High Court  that the Government was prevented from granting approval earlier  than February 7, 1991, when it was clarified that the order will not  prevent the Government only from giving approval to the draft award  pending consideration before it.  Once, the order of stay was so  modified, the Government granted approval on November 16, 1992.   It was not disputed before us that if the period from June 6, 1990 to  November 18, 1992 is excluded from the time taken in making the  award, the award must be held to have been made within two years  from the day of last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of  the Act.

        The submission that the stay order was obtained by the Society  itself is of no consequence, having regard to the language of  explanation to Section 11A of the Act.  The exclusion of the period  during which the order of stay operated is not dependant upon the  party obtaining such an order.  An order passed by the Court must  be  obeyed by all concerned.  In the instant case the Society moved the  High Court and obtained an order of stay.  In effect, the order  operated in such a manner that the Government was prevented from  granting approval to the award even if it so desired, nor could it refuse  approval during the period the order of stay operated.  Therefore,  explanation to Section 11A came into  operation and in accordance  therewith the period during which the order of stay operated must be  excluded from the total time taken to make the award.   

       Reliance was placed by the appellants on the observations made  by this Court in Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya Vs. State of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

Gujarat & Another (1991) 4 SCC 531.  In our view the aforesaid  decision in fact supports the case of the respondents.   In the aforesaid  judgment it was held:-

"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 preceding the  making of the award under Section 11 of the said  Act".     

That was no doubt a case where an order of injunction was obtained  by the land-holder restraining land acquisition authorities from taking  possession of the land.  It was, in that context, that this Court   observed that to get the benefit of the said provision the land-holder  who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from Court  restraining any action or proceedings in pursuance of declaration  under Section 6 of the Act.  It is, therefore, not possible to accept the  submission urged on behalf of the appellants that Section 11A of the  Act must be read in a narrow sense so as to apply to only those cases  where the land-owner himself obtained an order of stay or injunction.   We are not prepared to add words in the explanation by reading into it  a provision that gives to the explanation a narrower operation than  what was intended for it by the legislature, so as to apply only to cases  where an order of injunction is obtained by the land-owner and not by  anyone else.   

       We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in  Government of T.N. and Another vs. Vasantha Bai, (1995 (supp) 2  SCC 423).  This Court observed  :-

"Parliament enacted Section 11-A with a view to prevent  inordinate delay being made by the Land Acquisition  Officer in making the award.  The price to be paid for the  land acquired under compulsory acquisition is the  prevailing price as on the date of publication of Section  4(1) notification.  The delay in making the award  deprives the owner of the enjoyment of his property or to  deal with the land whose possession has already been  taken, and delay in making the award, would subject the  owner of the land to untold hardship.  With a view to  relieve hardship to the owner or person interested in the  land and to remedy the lapses on the part of the Land  Acquisition Officer in making the award, Section 11-A  was enacted which enjoins making of award  expeditiously.  So, outer limit of two years from the last  of the dates of publications, envisaged in Section 6 of the  Act was fixed.  If he fails to do so, all the acquisition  proceedings under the Act would stand lapsed and the  owner of the land or person interested in the land is made  free to deal with the land as an unencumbered land.   Cognizant to the fact that the acquisition proceedings are  questioned in a court of law, Parliament enacted  Explanation to Section 11-A declaring that the period  during which action or proceedings taken in pursuance of  the declaration under Section 6 is stayed by an order of  the court, the same "shall be excluded"."

       This Court emphasized the fact that Section 11-A was enacted  with a view to prevent inordinate delay being made by Land  Acquisition Officer in making the award which deprived owners of  the enjoyment of the property or to deal with the land whose  possession has already been taken Delay in making the award  subjected the owner of the land to untold hardship.   The objects and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

reasons for introducing Section 11-A into the Act were that "the  pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods often causes  hardship to the affected parties and renders unrealistic the scale of  compensation offered to them" and "it is proposed to provide for a  period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration  under Section 6 of the Act within which the Collector should make his  award under the Act".   The emphasis, therefore, was on the Collector  making his award within the period prescribed.  However, the  legislature was also aware of the reality of the situation and was not  oblivious of the fact that in many cases acquisition proceedings were  stalled by stay orders obtained from courts of law by interested  parties.  It, therefore, became imperative that in computing the period  of two years, the period during which an order of stay operated, which  prevented the authorities from taking any action or proceeding in  pursuance of the declaration, must be excluded.  If such a provision  was not made, an acquisition proceeding could be easily defeated by  obtaining an order of stay and prolonging the litigation thereafter.   Explanation to Section 11-A was meant to deal with situations of this  kind.  The explanation is in the widest possible terms which do not  limit its operation to cases where an order of stay is obtained by a  land-owner alone.  One can conceive of cases where apart from land- owners others may be interested in stalling the land acquisition  proceeding.  It is no doubt true that in most of the reported decisions  the party that obtained the stay order happened to be the owner of the  land acquired.  But that will not lead us to the conclusion that the  explanation applied only to cases where stay had been obtained by the  owners of the land.  There may be others who may be interested in  obtaining an order of stay being aggrieved by the acquisition  proceeding.  It may be that on account of development of that area  some persons in the vicinity may be adversely affected, or it may be  for any other reason that persons in the locality are adversely affected  by the project for which acquisition is being made.  One can imagine  many instances in which a person other than the owner may be  interested in defeating the acquisition proceeding.  Once an order of  stay is obtained and the Government and the Collector are prevented  from taking any further action pursuant to the declaration, they cannot  be faulted for the delay, and therefore, the period during which the   order of stay operates must be excluded.  In a sense,  operation of the  order of stay provides a justification for the delay in taking further  steps in the acquisition proceeding for which the authorities are not to  blame.   

We, therefore, agree with the High Court that after excluding  the period during which the order of stay operated, the award was  made within the period prescribed by Section 11A of the Act.                      This takes us to the main point urged in the appeals by the  appellants.   Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, senior advocate, submitted that no award  was made in accordance with Section 11 of the Act.  The award sent  to the Government for approval was at best a draft award.  After the  Government granted approval no further action was taken by the  Collector to make an award.  It is his contention that after the award  was approved by the Government the Collector should have signed  the award and thereafter communicated his award to the parties.  This  was not done and, therefore, in the eye of law no award was made by  the Collector.  He further submitted that no consent award was made  in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 11.  Moreover, before  the Full Bench it was not even argued by the respondents that a  consent award under sub-section (2) of Section 11 was made by the  Collector.  In any event even the question of making an award by  consent did not arise, since no award whatsoever was made within the  period prescribed by law, since the approved award remained a draft  award.           Mr. Ganguli appearing for some of the appellants submitted  that the notice issued under Section 11 of the Act was not relevant.   What was relevant was the date of the signing of the award.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

award attained finality under Section 12,  if it was filed in the  Collector’s office,  regardless of the fact whether the persons  interested appeared before  the Collector or not.  According to him,  the award referred to in Section 12 is the award made under Section  11.  Therefore, unless an award is  made under Section 11  the stage  of filing of the award in the Collector’s office under Section 12 is not  reached and, therefore, unless the award is first made in accordance  with Section 11, no award can be filed in the Collector’s office under  Section 12.          Shri Nageshwar Rao, senior advocate appearing on behalf of  some of the appellants, adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of  other appellants and in particular submitted that there was non- compliance with the legal requirements for making an award by  consent.  He also took us through the material on record to submit that  no consent award was made, and in any event the legal requirements  were not fulfilled to bring into existence a consent award.         On the other hand, Shri P.P. Rao, senior advocate appearing on  behalf of some of  the respondents, contented that under Section 11  the Collector has to make an award but with the prior approval of the  State Government.  The award made by the Collector is an offer to the  persons concerned which binds the Collector but not the persons  concerned who may challenge the findings of the Collector in a  proceeding under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act.  Adverting to  the facts of the case, he submitted that the award sent to the  Government for approval was a signed award.  Once the said award  was approved as it was, that is  without any alteration, the award   came into effect and the moment it was filed in the office of the  Collector under Section 12 of the Act, it became final subject to the  objections that may be raised by the persons concerned in proceedings  under the Act.  According to him, the award was filed in the office of  the Collector between 16th November, 1992 and 20th November, 1992  and a notice was given to the parties concerned regarding making of  the award on November 20, 1992.  Thus, an award was made in  accordance with law.  There was no need for the Collector to sign the  award twice.  It was enough if the award was made by the Collector  and approved by the Government within the statutory period of two  years from the date  of last declaration published under Section 6 of  the Act.  In the alternative, he submitted that in respect of 18 acres and  1 guntha of land a consent award was made and the dispute related  only to  2 acres and 10 gunthas belonging to Bailamma (Petitioner) in  Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 1999.

       At this stage, we may observe that having regard to the  controversy raised before us, we required  the State to produce before  us the original file.  Shri Sanjay Hegde, counsel for the State,  produced before us the original file, from which it appears that after  the award was signed by the Collector on March 13, 1990, the Society  had moved the High Court by way of Writ Petition for a mandamus  directing the State Government to approve the award.  However, after  the order of the High Court dated 7th February, 1991, modifying the  earlier interim order of stay and permitting the Government to take a  decision with regard to the approval of the award, the Divisional  Commissioner sent the award to the Government for approval  on  10.6.1991.  The Government granted its approval on 16.11.1992 and  the record was returned to the office of the Collector.  On November  20, 1992, notice under Section 12(2) was issued after the file was  received by the Deputy Commissioner.  He also pointed out the  agreements in Form ’D’ signed by the person authorized under Article  229 of the Constitution of India, namely, the Special Land Acquisition  Officer.

       In this factual background, we now proceed to consider the  submissions urged before us.         Section 11 of the act requires the Collector to make an enquiry  into the objections, if any, made by the persons interested pursuant to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

the notices given under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act as to the value of  the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4.   He is also required to make an enquiry into the respective interest of  the persons claiming the compensation.  After considering the  objections raised by the persons interested he is required to make an  award under his hand which should contain his findings on the matters  enumerated in (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 11.  The  proviso to Section 11, however, mandates that the Collector shall not  make an award under this sub-section without previous approval of  the appropriate Government.   

       The Collector is required to hear the persons interested and  enquire into the objections, if any, raised by them on the points which  he is required to determine.  It is possible to conceive that he may hear  the objections on several dates having regard to the number of  objectors and the nature of the dispute that may arise, where-after he  must make up his mind and prepare his award. It is not expected of  him that he should prepare his award in presence of the persons  interested, since the Collector may take some time to make up his  mind on the matters he is required to incorporate in his award.   Thereafter, he is required to send his award to the Government for  approval.  The approval of the award may take sometime, and it is not  known to the Collector as to when the Government will approve the  award.  However, after the award is approved, if there is no alteration  in the award, he is required to notify the parties concerned about the  award.  He may do so by fixing a date on which  the parties may be  required to appear for pronouncement of the award, or he may inform  them by giving them written notice of the award.  This is because an  award is in the nature of an offer and must be communicated to the  persons to whom the offer is made.  There is nothing in Section 11  which expressly requires the Collector to announce his award in the  presence of the persons interested, though there is nothing which  prevents him from declaring the award on a date fixed by him for the  purpose.  However, having regard to the provisions of Section 12(2)  of the Act, he must give immediate notice to such of the persons  interested as are not present personally or by their representative when  the award is made.  Thus viewed, there can be no doubt that after the  award is approved the same becomes an offer to be made to the  persons interested, and this can be done by either giving notice to the  persons interested of the date on which he may orally pronounce the  award, or by giving written notice of the award to the persons  interested.  The question of limitation for filing a reference under  Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act has to be determined by reference  

to the date on which the award was either pronounced before the  parties who were present, or the date of the receipt of notice of the  award  by  those not present.  The mere fact that the Collector did not  pronounce the award after notice in the presence of the parties  interested  will not invalidate the award, though it may have a bearing  on the question of limitation in the matter of seeking a reference under  Section 18 or 30 of the Act.  The award which has already been  signed by the Collector becomes an award as soon as it is approved by  the Government without any alteration.  At best the appellants can  contend that it becomes an award when notice is given to the parties  interested.  Viewed from any angle, having regard to the fact that  there is no dispute that the Government granted its approval on  16.11.1992 and notices were issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on  November 20, 1992, it must be held that the award was made within  the period prescribed by Section 11A of the Act.   There was really no  necessity for the Collector to sign the award again, nor does Section  11 require that for the purpose of pronouncing the award notice  should be given by the Collector to the persons interested.   Section 11  requires   notice to   be   given   for the purpose of hearing objections.   After the objections are heard, the Collector has to apply his mind to  all the relevant facts and circumstances and prepare an award

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

whereafter he is required to send it to the Government for approval.   There is nothing in Section 11 which requires him to give notice to the  persons interested of the date for pronouncement of the award,  though, as we have observed earlier, there is also nothing which  prevents him from giving such notice.  We agree with the finding of  the High Court that once it is shown that the award was made and  signed and approved by the Government within the period prescribed  by Section 11A of the Act an award is validly made.  In the instant  case, we have satisfied ourselves that the award was received by the  Deputy Commissioner after approval, and notice was thereafter issued  under Section 12(2) of the Act on November 20, 1992.   

       In view of our finding it is not necessary for us to consider the  submission urged on behalf of the respondents that the award made by  the Collector was a consent award at least in respect of 18 acres and 1  guntha of land.   We find no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly  dismissed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be  no order as to costs.