The
State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Sharan Pal Singh
& Ors [1995] INSC 844 (14 December 1995)
Venkataswami
K. (J) Venkataswami K. (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) K. Venkataswami, J.
CITATION:
1995 SCALE (7)310
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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.
Back