2011 (9) TMI 1220 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the delay in making the award u/s 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Whether the period for making the award should exclude the time taken to communicate the vacation of the stay order to the Land Acquisition Collector.

Summary:

Issue 1: Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings u/s 11A

The Appellants contended that the award dated 21st April 2003 was made in violation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates that the award u/s 11 should be made within two years from the declaration u/s 6. The declaration was made on 9th April 1997 and published on 14th April 1997, but the award was made on 21st April 2003, beyond the two-year period. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the stay order in CWP No. 6687 of 1998 was vacated on 23rd July 2002 but communicated to the Land Acquisition Collector on 27th March 2003, thus the award was within the prescribed period.

Issue 2: Exclusion of Period for Communication of Stay Order Vacation

The Appellants argued that the period from 12th February 1999 to 23rd July 2002, when the stay was in effect, should be excluded, and not the period until the communication of the vacation of the stay order. The Respondents contended that the period should be considered until the communication date, as the Land Acquisition Collector was not informed earlier. The Court noted that the explanation to Section 11A allows exclusion of the period during which proceedings are stayed by a court order. The Court found that the Land Acquisition Collector acted promptly after receiving the certified copy of the order on 27th March 2003 and made the award on 21st April 2003.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the acquisition proceedings could not be permitted to lapse, especially given the prompt action by the Land Acquisition Collector after receiving the communication. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 11A is to ensure timely compensation to landowners, but in this case, the delay was due to the Appellants' actions. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.