http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMED NENDOLIYA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1991

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 2153            1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 158  1991 SCC  (4) 531        1991 SCALE  (2)608

ACT: Land Acquisition Act, 1894:     Section 11-A---Explanation--Interpretation  of--Acquisi- tion  of landproceedings--When lapse---Two-Year  period  for making  of  award--Computation  of--Whether  entire   period during which any action or proceedings pursuant to  declara- tion under Section 6 remained staved to be excluded.

HEADNOTE:     A  notification under Section 6 of the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in respect of lands under the appel- lant’s  occupation.  The appellant challenged the  notifica- tion before the High Court and prayed for an interim stay of operation  and implementation of the  notification.  Pending admission of the appellant’s Special Civil Application,  the High Court granted limited interim relief by restraining the respondent  from taking possession of the  lands.  Meanwhile Respondent  No.  2, the Land Acquisition Officer,  issued  a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act and proceeded to deter- mine  the  compensation.  In the enquiry,  he  rejected  the appellant’s  objection that as two years had  elapsed  after the  publication of the notification and no award  had  been made within the said period, all the acquisition proceedings lapsed and were exhausted. The High Court also rejected  the appellant’s  appeal, relying on the decision of  a  Division Bench of the High Court, that Section 11-A of the  aforesaid Act enjoined exclusion of the entire period during which any action  or proceeding to be taken pursuant to a  declaration under Section 6 was stayed by an order of a competent court, and that the Explanation to the Section was not confined  to the staying of the making of the award, pursuant to  Section 6 of the notification, but it was widely worded and  covered in  its sweep the entire period during which any  action  or proceeding was stayed by a competent Court.     In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appel- lant  it was contended that by Explanation to  Section  11-A the  only  period excluded in computing the  period  of  two years was the period during which  any action     159 or  proceeding taken in pursuance of the  declaration  under Section 6 upto the making of the award under Section 11  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

stayed  and  that the question of  taking  possession  could arise  after making the award and merely because  the  land- holder  obtained an injunction restraining land  acquisition authorities  from taking possession that could not serve  to exclude  any time from the period of two years within  which the award must be made. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: The Explanation to Section 11-A of the Land Acqui- sition Act, 1894, which prescribes the period to be excluded while  computing  the period of two years within  which  the award  has to be made, is in the widest possible  terms  and 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 Act.  In the first place, where the case is covered by  Sec- tion 17, the possession can be taken before an award is made and there is no reason why the expression "the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance  of the  said declaration is stayed by an order by a Court",  in the Explanation should be given a different meaning, depend- ing upon whether the case is covered by Section 17 or other- wise.  On  the other hand, the Explanation  is  intended  to limit the benefit conferred by Section 11-A on a land-holder whose  land is acquired after the declaration under  Section 6.  The  benefit  is that the award must be  made  within  a period  of two years of the 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 operation  of the beneficial provisions of Section  11-A  is confined  to 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  ac- quired. [163 E-H, 164 A]     The  High Court was, therefore, right in  rejecting  the appellant’s challenge to the continuance of the proceedings. [164-B]     Special  Civil Application No. 4314 of 1990  decided  by Gujarat High Court approved. 160     S. BavajanSahib v. State of Kerala and Others, AIR  1988 Kerala 280, disapproved.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 3659 of 1991.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  5.11.1990  of  the Gujarat  High  Court in Spl. Civil Application No.  7685  of 1990.     Dushyant Dave, Ms. Indu Malhotra and Ms. Shirin Jain for the Appellant.               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by               KANIYA, J. Leave granted. Counsel heard               This  appeal  raises an  interesting  question               regarding  the interpretation of Section  11-A               of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter               referred  to as "the said Act"). Section  11-A               was inserted into the said Act by Section 9 of               Act 68 of 1984.     The relevant facts lie within a very narrow compass. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

appellant  is the occupant of lands comprising  Survey  Nos. 864  and  687 respectively of village Samal  Pati  in  Patan Taluka  of Mehsana District in Gujarat. The said lands  were sought  to be acquired by the State of  Gujarat,  Respondent No. 2 herein, for the purpose of ’the North Gujarat  Univer- sity.   The notification under Section 6 of the said Act  in respect  of the said lands was issued on May 12,  1988.  The parties proceeded on the assumption that it was published in the locality around about that time. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated in the High Court that such publication took place sometime in June 1988, and the parties as well as the  Court proceeded on the footing that the said  statement is  correct. The appellant challenged the said  notification by filing Special Civil Application No. 4342 of 1988 in  the High Court of Gujarat. On the prayer for interim relief made by the appellant for the stay of the operation and implemen- tation  of  the said notification, the  Gujarat  High  Court granted  only  a limited interim relief by  restraining  re- spondent  No. 1 from taking possession of the said lands  of the  appellant pending admission of the said  special  civil application.  The said interim relief, which was granted  on August  8,  1988, still continues to be  operative.  In  the meantime,  respondent  No.  2, being  the  Land  Acquisition Officer concerned, issued a notice under Section 9(1) of the said  Act and proceeded to determine the compensation  after hearing  the objections. In the inquiry held  by  respondent No. 2 in respect of the objections the appel- 161 lant  took up the contention that, as two years had  elapsed after the publication of the notification making the  decla- ration  under  Section 6 of the said Act, and no  award  had been  made within the said period, all the acquisition  pro- ceedings in respect of the said lands lapsed and the  acqui- sition  proceedings were exhausted. The said  contention  of the appellant was rejected by the land acquisition  authori- ties.  The  appellant challenged this decision of  the  land acquisition authorities by filing the Special Civil Applica- tion  No.  7685 of 1990 in the High Court  of  Gujarat.  The challenge  made by the appellant to the continuance  of  the acquisition  proceedings  was repelled by the  Gujarat  High Court  relying on the decision of an earlier Division  Bench of that Court comprising of R.C. Mankad and K.J. Vaidya, JJ. in  Special Civil Application No. 4314 of 1990. It was  held by  the  Division Bench that Section 11-A of  the  said  Act enjoins  exclusion  of the entire period  during  which  any action  or proceeding to be taken pursuant to a  declaration under Section 6 is stayed by an order of a competent  court. The  Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court took the  view that the Explanation to Section 11-A is not confined to  the staying of the making of the award pursuant to Section 6  of the notification, but it is widely worded and covers in  its sweep the entire period during which any action or  proceed- ing  to be taken in pursuance of the declaration under  Sec- tion 6, is stayed by a competent court.  I1 is the  correct- ness of this decision, which is assailed before us.     In  order to appreciate the submissions made before  us, it  will be useful to refer to the relevant  provisions  of’ the  said  Act.  Section 4 of the said Act  deals  with  the publication  in  the  Official Gazette  of  the  preliminary notification  that it appears to the appropriate  government that  land  in  any locality is needed or is  likely  to  be needed for any public purpose or for a company, where it  so appears  to the appropriate Government. Section 5A  provides for  the hearing of the objections to the proposed  acquisi- tion.  Section 6 provides for the issuance of a  declaration

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

of intended acquisition, namely, that land is required for a public  purpose after considering the report, if  any,  made under Section 5-A. Section 11 of the said Act deals with the enquiry into the matters set out therein and the making  the award  of  compensation by the Collector. The  said  section prescribes that the said award, inter alia, shall  determine the  compensation  which  in the opinion  of  the  Collector should be allowed for the land and for apportionment of such compensation  among all the persons interested in  the  said land  as provided in Section 11 (i) (iii) of the  said  Act. Section 11-A which was inserted in 1984 into the said Act as stated earlier runs as follows:               "11-A.  Period within which an award shall  be               made---The Col-               162               lector  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  decla-               ration has been published before the commence-               ment 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 exclud-               ed.     Section 12 deals with the question as to when the  award of  the Collector becomes final. Section 15 deals  with  the matters to be considered and matters to be neglected in  the determination of the compensation. Section 16 deals with the power to take possession and provides that when the  Collec- tor has made an award under Section 11, he may take  posses- sion  of the land which shall thereupon vest  absolutely  in the  Government free from encumbrances. Section  17  confers powers  on the appropriate government to take possession  of any  land  needed for a public purpose and  intended  to  be acquired,  although  no  award has been made,  in  cases  of special urgency.     The  submission of learned Counsel for the appellant  is that in the present case the notification under Section 6 of the  said Act was published in June 1988 and, as  the  award under  Section 11 not made by the Collector within a  period of  two years from the date of the publication,  the  entire proceedings  for  the  acquisition of the  land  lapsed.  In connection  with  the Explanation to Section 1  I-A  it  was submitted  by learned Counsel that by the  said  Explanation the  only period excluded in computing the aforesaid  period of  two years is the period during which any action or  pro- ceeding  taken  in pursuance of the said  declaration  under Section  6  upto the stage of Section 11, namely,  upto  the making of the award under Section 11 was stayed by the order of  a  competent  court. It was submitted by  him  that  the question  of taking possession would arise after making  the award  under  Section  11 and merely  because  a  landholder obtained an injunction restraining land acquisition authori- ties from taking possession that would not serve to  exclude any time from the aforesaid period of two years within which the award must be made. 163

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

   In  support  of his contention learned Counsel  for  the appellant relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of  the  Kerala High Court in S. Bavajan Sahib v.  State  of Kerala and others, AIR 1988 Kerala 280. In his judgment  the learned  Single Judge has taken the view that the action  or proceeding  contemplated by the Explanation to Section  11-A of  the  said Act is any action or proceeding  to  be  taken after  the  making of the declaration under  section  6  and before  the  passing  of the award under  section  11.  Such actions  are  those contemplated by sections 7  to  10.  The question  of taking possession of the land arises only  when the award is passed under Section 16 of the said Act  except in  cases  of  emergency covered under Section  17.  It  was pointed  out by the learned Judge that the case  before  him was not a case in respect of which Section 17 was applicable and  hence, unless there was a stay of the proceedings  con- templated  by  Sections 7 to 10 or  of  further  proceedings pursuant to the declaration under Section 6 the  Explanation will  not  operate so as to extend the period of  two  years prescribed  by  Section 11-A. We find  ourselves  unable  to agree  with  the  view of the learned Single  Judge  of  the Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment.  In the  Expla- nation to Section 11-A of the said Act which prescribes  the period which is to be excluded, the expression used is               "the  period during which any action  or  pro-               ceedings to be taken in pursuance of the  said               declaration is stayed by an order by a Court."                           (Emphasis supplied)     The  said  Explanation is in the widest  possible  terms and,  in our opinion, there is no warrant for  limiting  the action  or  proceeding  referred to in  the  Explanation  to actions  or  proceedings preceding 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 expres- sion 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  Section 11-A  is intended to limit the benefit conferred on  a  land holder  whose land is acquired after the  declaration  under Section  6 is made to in cases covered by  the  Explanation. The  benefit is that the award must be made within a  period of two years of the declaration, failing which the  acquisi- tion  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 164 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 in taking a similar view in the impugned judgment. In  the  result, there is no merit in the appeal and  it  is dismissed. N.P.V.                                     Appeal dismissed. 165