9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 should be made within two years from the date on which declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made. According to the Appellants, who were the Petitioners before the High Court, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 9th April, 1997 and it was published on 14th April, 1997 whereas the award was made on 21st April, 2003. As there was delay beyond the period of two years in making the award, according to the Appellants, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed as per the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. Of course, it was submitted before the High Court that the proceedings had been stayed for sometime by virtue of an order dated 12th February, 1999 passed in CWP No. 6687 of 1998 but the said stay order had been vacated on 23rd July, 2002 and even after ignoring the period during which the stay was operating, the authority had taken more than two years for making the award and, therefore, the proceedings had lapsed. 3. The High Court dismissed the petition as it was of the view that though the stay granted, in CWP No. 6687 of 1998, was vacated on 23rd July, 2002, the said order was communicated to the Land Acquisition Collector on 27th March, 2003 and, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court, Respondent No. 3 and even other government authorities were not represented by any counsel and, therefore, Respondent No. 3, who had to make an award under Section 11 of the Act, was not informed about the said order and, therefore, Respondent No. 3 was under an impression that the stay which was granted on 12th February, 1999 had not been vacated. Upon getting a certified copy of the order on 27th March, 2003 and intimation of the said order for the first time, Respondent No. 3 immediately did the needful for making an award under Section 11 of the Act and in fact, he made the award on 21st April, 2003. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that an effort was being made to stall the proceedings by the Appellants. He drew our attention to the proceedings of CWP No. 6687 of 1998, which had been initiated by the father of the present Appellants. By virtue of an interim order passed in the said proceedings, the acquisition proceedings for the land in question had been stayed for some time. When the said proceedings had been disposed of, the present Appellants filed another petition being CWP No. 3845 of 2002, wherein a grievance was made that though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... award shall be made -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: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. 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. 12. Upon perusal of Section 11A of the Act, it is clear that the award should be made within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. The purpose is to see that the award is made at an early date so that the claimants, whose lands have been acquired, get compensation as soon as possible. By acquiring the land and by not making the award, the government would be acting against the interest of the persons whose lands had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e we do not accept the said submission because in the instant case the Appellants and their father had made all possible efforts to stall the proceedings and only on account of the litigation initiated by them, the acquisition proceedings had been stayed. Ultimately, the stay granted by the High Court had been vacated but intimation of the order, whereby stay was vacated, i.e. dated 23rd July, 2002 was communicated, for the first time, to the Land Acquisition Collected on 27th March, 2003. When the order dated 23rd July, 2002, vacating the earlier stay order was passed, the counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3, namely, the Land Acquisition Collector or the government was not present and, therefore, intimation of the said order was not given to the Land Acquisition Collector, who was duty bound to make an award as per the provisions of Section 11A of the Act within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 15. The purpose behind enactment of Section 6 and Section 11A is different though the language used in both the Sections is similar. Section 6 pertains to pre-acquisition stage whereas Section 11A pertains to post-acquisition stage, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia. 18. In the aforestated set of circumstances, in our opinion, the acquisition proceedings cannot be permitted to lapse, especially when the Land Acquisition Collector had acted promptly after getting a certified copy of the order whereby the stay granted in CWP No. 6687 of 1998 was vacated. As his counsel was absent when the above stated order was passed, he could not know about the said order earlier and as per findings of the High Court, he came to know about vacation of the stay order for the first time on 27th March, 2003. 19. We also note the fact that possession of the land in question was taken long back and the land in question has been put to the use for which it has been acquired. 20. We do not find any fault with the Land Acquisition Collector for not making the award before getting a certified copy of the order dated 23rd July, 2002 on 27th March, 2003 especially when he was not informed about the said fact earlier. There cannot be any doubt that no person would ever think of taking an action when he has been restrained by any interim order of any court from doing so. Once a person has been restrained by a court of competent jurisdiction from doing somethin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
