http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

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:                          O R D E R      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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

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

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.