2011 (4) TMI 1535 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the acquisition proceedings despite the award not being made within the prescribed period.
3. Whether the High Court correctly applied the ratio of the judgments in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. and Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar.

Summary:

Issue 1: Non-compliance with Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court noted that the Respondents failed to take possession of the acquired land and pass the award within the period prescribed u/s 11A. The Respondents knew about the dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the Appellants in 1990 and 1997 respectively, yet they failed to act within the stipulated period.

Issue 2: High Court's Refusal to Quash Acquisition Proceedings
The Supreme Court found that the High Court was wrong in refusing to quash the acquisition proceedings. The High Court had accepted the Respondents' assertion that they did not know about the dismissal of the writ petitions until April/May 2000. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Respondents were aware of the dismissal of various petitions in 1995 and 1997 in the presence of their advocates. The High Court failed to scrutinize the entire record carefully before concluding that there was no violation of Section 11A.

Issue 3: Application of Judgments in Satendra Prasad Jain and Awadh Bihari Yadav
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in applying the ratio of the judgments in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. and Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar. In those cases, possession of the acquired land was taken within two years of the publication of the declaration issued u/s 6(1), resulting in the land vesting in the State Government. In the present case, possession was not taken within two years of the dismissal of the writ petitions, and thus, the land did not vest in the State Government.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. It was declared that the acquisition proceedings would be deemed to have lapsed concerning the Appellants due to non-compliance with the mandate of Section 11A of the Act. The parties were left to bear their own costs.