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

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHARAN PAL SINGH & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1995

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCALE  (7)310

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K.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

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

    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

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

    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