M.Ramalinga Thevar Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu & Ors [2000] INSC 236 (19 April 2000)
K.T. THOMAS & M.B. Shah
Thomas J.
Leave granted.
L.I.T.J A Land Acquisition Collector passed
award only after the expiry of two years from the date of publication of the
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the
"Act'). The owner of the land wanted a declaration that proceedings for
acquisition covered by the said publication stood lapsed on the expiry of the
said period of two years. But a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras
which the owner of the land approached for such a relief, repelled his
contentions. The High Court took into account the time during which proceedings
for taking possession of the land were stayed by an order passed in a writ
petition. When that period was excluded from the time fixed for passing the
award the Division Bench held that the award was passed within the permitted
range of time. The owner of the land challenges the said judgment in this
appeal.
After hearing learned counsel for the
appellant we did not find the necessity to issue notice to the respondent State
as the appeal can be disposed of without resorting to such a course.
A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
was published in the gazette on 27.2.1991. That notification was challenged by
the appellant in writ petition No.9715 of 1991 which he filed before the High
Court of Allahabad on 16.7.1991. On the same day an order was passed by the High
Court staying dispossession of the appellant from the property involved.
Despite the pendency of the said writ petition the Government published
declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 10.4.1992. But the award was passed
only on 16.9.1994. Thus, there is no doubt that the award was passed only after
the expiry of two years from the date of declaration.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that since there was no stay for passing an award the period of two years
should have been counted from 10.4.1992 which had expired on 9.4.1994 and by
such expiry the proceedings had become lapsed. Section 11A and the Explanation
thereto (omitting the proviso which is not material in this case) are extracted
below:
"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.
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 excluded]." As per the Explanation the period of
exclusion from the time is the period during which "any action or
proceedings" to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed.
We have no doubt that one of the actions
contemplated pursuant to the declaration is taking possession of the land,
though such action is a post-award step in normal circumstances and in emergent
circumstances it can as well be a pre-award step. Nonetheless, taking
possession is one of the actions to be adopted as a follow- up measure pursuant
to the declaration envisaged in Section 6 of the Act. The consequence mentioned
in Section 11A is a self-operating statutory process and, therefore, it can
operate only when the conditions specified therein conjoin together. The
consequence would step in only when there is fusion of all the conditions
stipulated therein. If there is any stay regarding any of the actions to be
taken pursuant to the declaration then the consequence of lapse would not
happen. A three judge bench of this court had considered the scope of the Explanation
to Section 11A of the Act in Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya vs. State of
Gujarat[1991 (4) SCC 531]:
"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. 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 landholder whose land is acquired after the
declaration under Section 6 is made 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 acquisition
proceedings would lapse and the land would revert to the landholder. In order
to get the benefit of the said provision what is required, is that the
landholder 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 landholders 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 Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan vs. State of Karnataka [1994
(4) SCC 145] the question considered was the scope of Explanation 1 to the
proviso of Section 6 of the Act which also contained a similar restriction that
no declaration under the section shall be made after the expiry of three years
from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4. The said
Explanation states that in computing the aforesaid period of three years
"the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in
pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) is stayed by an order
of a court shall be excluded." As there was only a stay of dispossession
from the land concerned the High Court did not permit that period of stay to be
excluded from the three years' period. But this Court reversed the said view of
the High Court and stated thus:
"Though there is no specific direction
prohibiting the publication of the declaration under Section 6, no useful
purpose would be served by publishing Section 6(1) declaration pending
adjudication of the legality of Section 4(1), notification. If any action is
taken to preempt the proceedings, it would be stigmatised either as `undue
haste' or action to `overreach the Court's judicial process.' Therefore, the
period during which the order of dispossession granted by the High Court
operated, should be excluded in computation of the period of three years
covered by clause (1) of the first proviso to the Land Acquisition Act. When it
is so computed, the declaration published on the second occasion is perfectly
valid. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justification to quash the
notification published under Section 6, dated May 17, 1984.
The review petitions are accordingly
dismissed. No costs." Both the above decisions were later followed by this
Court in Government of Tamil Nadu vs. Vasantha Bai {1995 Supple. (2) SCC 423}.
Thus, the position is now well settled that
even when dispossession alone is stayed by the Court the period during which
such stay operates would stand excluded from the time fixed for passing the
award, the expiry of which would render the acquisition proceedings lapsed. In
the light of the said interpretation it is now idle to contend that the
Government is debarred from proceeding with the acquisition.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
