GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus VASANTHA BAI

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 07-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
v. 
VASANTHA BAI 
APRIL 7, 1995 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, 6, 11 and 1 IA-Explanation. 
Land Acquisition-Award-Prescribed period of two years for 
C making-Computation of-Exclusion of period during which proceedings are 
stayed by Court-Held stay of dispossession amounts to stay of further 
proceedings under the Act-Period of stay of dispossession has to be excluded 
from the prescribed period. 
In land acquisition proceedings, a Notification under Section 4(1) of 
D the Land Acqnisition Act, 1894 was pnblished on April 12, 1988 while the 
declaration nnder Section 6 was published on April 29, 1980. The 
respondent's petition challenging the acquisition proceedings was dis· 
missed by a Single Judge of the High Conrt on June 18, 1992 against which 
a writ appeal was preferred. However, pending the writ petition, the 
E respondent obtained stay of dispossession by order dated October 19, 1990 
and the same was continning pending the appeal. The Division Bench 
allowed the respondent's appeal and qnashed the notification issued under 
Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. It held that the order 
restraining dispossession did not amount to stay of further proceedings 
) 
nor it prevented the land acquisition officer to take further action in 
).._ 
F pursuance of the declaration under section 6. As under Section 11-A, 
award has to be made within a period of two years from the date of 
publication of the ~eclaration and since the award was not made within 
that period the netilkation issued under section 4(1) and the declaration 
stood lapsed. 
G 
Allowing State's appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as brought 
on statute by Land Acquisition (Amendment ) Act 68/84 adumbrates that 
the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two 
H years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award 
258 
6ovr. OFT.N. v. v. BAI 
259 
is made within that period, the entire proceeding for acquisition of the land A 
,,;-. 
shall lapse. The Explanation amplified that iu computing the period of two 
years referred to in the section, the period during which any action or 
proceeding to be taken, in pursuance of the said declaration, is stayed by 
j 
---....<' " 
' -
an order of the court, shall be excluded. The stay of dispossession tau-
tamounts to stay of further proceediugs being taken nuder section 11 aud B 
Explanation to Section 11-A covers such an order and the entire period of 
stay has to be excluded in computing the period of two years prescribed 
by Section 11-A. The Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error 
in taking the contrary view. [260-C, E, 262-H, 263-A, 262-G] 
YN. Nendolia v. State of Gujarat, [1991) 4 SCC 531 and Sangappa G. C 
Sajjan v. State of Kamataka, [1994] 4 SCC 145, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4608 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.93 of the Madras High 
Court in W .A. No. 1079 of 1992. 
Niranjana Singh, (Ms. A. Subhashin~) for Arputham, Aruna and Co. 
for the Appellants. 
R. Mohan, V.G. Pragasam and R. Nedumaran for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Notification under s.4(1) of the Laud Acquisition Act, 1894, (for 
shor~ 'the Act'), as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 was published in 
the gazette on April 12, 1988 acquiring an extent of 0.87.0 hectare of the 
land bearing Survey Nos. 84/1-Bl and 85/1-B of Madivilagam village, 
Sriperumpudur Taluk, Chengai Anna District in Tamil Nadu State, for 
public purpose. After conducting enquiry under s.5-A, declaration under 
s.6 was published in the gazette on April 29, 1989 and the local publication 
was made on May 2, 1989. 
Calling in question the validity of the notification and the declaration, 
the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 12888/90. On June 18, 1992, the 
single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Writ Appeal 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
No. 1079/92 was filed. Pending writ petition, the respondent had obtained 
stay of dispossession by order dated October 19, 1990 and the same was 
continuing pending appeal. when the writ appeal had come up for final 
hearing, one of the contentions raised, which persuaded the Division Bench 
for acceptance, was that under s.11-A, the award should be made within a 
B period
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.