ABDUL MAJEED SAHIB AND ANR. versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 01-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ABDUL MAJEED SAHIB AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 1, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Sections 4,6,11-A, 36 and 48-Land acquisition notice for 
establishment of a telephone exchange-Determination of compensation-
Negotiation between parties-Meanwhile 2 years limitation prescribed under C 
S.11-A. had lapsed-Appellant's application under S.48(2) for 
determination of compensation-Rejected-Writ Petition also dismissed-
On appeal held, Government had not exercised the power under S.48(1) 
withdrawing/ram the notification of the dec/aration--Statutory lapse under 
S.11A distinct and different from voluntary act on the part ofGovernment-
Hence appellant not entitled to avail the remedy of sub-section(2) of S. 48. D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14784 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.93 of the Kerala High Court E 
in 0.P. No. 1061 ofl993. 
E.M.S. Anam for the Appellants. 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, G. Nageswar Reddy, C. V.S. F 
Rao for Mrs. Anil Katiyar and M.T. George for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
G 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 H 
347 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A (for short 'the Act') was published on October 16, 1987 proposing to 
acquire the land for establishment of a telephone exchange. Declaration 
under Section 6 was published in June 1988. It would appear that there 
was a negotiation between the parties for settlement by determination of 
compensation by agreement, but in the process, two years limiation 
prescribed under Section 11-A introduced by Act 68 of 1984 in the Act, 
B had lapsed on June 16,1990. As a result, the notification and declaration 
by operation of Section 11-A stood lapsed. Subsequently, the appellant 
had filed on application under Section 48(2) on September 17, 1990 for 
determination of compensation which was rejected on February 18, 1992. 
The writ petition was dismissed in O.P. No.1061193 on July 9, 1993 by 
the High Court of Kerala. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
c 
Shri Anam, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that by 
statutory operation under Section 11-A, when the acquisition stood lapsed, 
it amounted to withdrawal from acquisition by operation of sub-section 
(I) of Section 48. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 48 stands attracted. 
Resultantly, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation 
D due for the damages suffered by the owner in consequence of the notification 
published under Section 4( I) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 
and the proceedings taken thereafter. The High Court and the Land 
Acquisition Officer, therefore, were not-right in rejecting the claim of the 
appellant. Having regard to the contention, we think that the contention of 
E the learned counsel is not well-founded. 
Section 11-A was brought on statute by Amendment Act 68 of 1984. 
It was notorious that the State, after publication of declaration under Section 
6 went on delaying for years, to pass the awards putting obstruction to the 
owner of the land for enjoyment; resultantly, loss and undue disadvantage 
F ensued to the owner of the land. To mitigate such hardship, the Parliament 
introduced Section 11-A and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to 
make the award within two years from the date of publication of last of 
the steps under Section 6(2) publishing the declaration under Section 6. 
As a consequence, the Land Acquisition Officer is statutorily under an 
G obligations at the pain of invalidation of the acquisition itself to make the 
award within two years unless it falls within one of the provisos or the 
Explanation added thereto. In this case, neither the proviso nor the 
Explanation stands attracted to the facts. Consequently, since the Land 
Acquisition Officer did not make the award within two years from the 
date of the declaration viz., June 17, 1988, the entire acquisition shall 
H stand lapsed. 
• 
ABDUL MAJEED SAHIB v. DISTT. COLLECTOR 
349 
Section 48(1) of the Act provides that "Except in the case provided A 
for in Section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the 
acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken." 
Consequently, due to any notification issued under Section 4(1) or the 
declaration publis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.