KUNWAR PAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 26-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
.,J 
KUNWAR PAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 26, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERAND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 5A, 6, 11-A and 17-Land 
Acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act-Writ Petitions by land 
owners before High Court contending that the land has not been acquired c 
for public purpose was partly allowed-Supreme Court dismissing the appeals 
of the land owners and allowing the appeals of the State with a direction 
to pass an Award within a prescribed period-Land Acquisition officer making 
an Award-Writ Petitions by land owners challenging the validity of the 
Award on the ground that it is made beyond the statutory period-High 
Court dismissing the Writ Petitions-Correctness of-Held, on law, the D 
~ 
statutory period prescribed under the Act must be strictly adhered t~n 
facts, the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is made beyond the statutory 
period and hence it is null and void. 
Respondent-State published a preliminary Notification under section 4 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land belonging to E 
appellants for construction of residential/commerical buildings under a 
Planned Development Scheme. A Declaration under section 6 of the Act was 
also published in the Official Gazette under section 6 of the Act The provisions 
of Section 17(1) of the Act were invoked and enquiry under section SA of the 
_,. 
Act has been dispensed with. 
F 
The appellants filed Writ Petitions before High Court challenging the 
validity of the Notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act inter 
alia on the ground that the land had not been acquired for public purpose and 
that the action of the State in taking recourse to the provisions of Section 17 
of the Act was arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court partly allowed G 
the writ petitions and quashed the Notification under section 6 of the Act 
holding that it was invalid in terms of the amended provisions of section 17( 4) 
of the Act. The appellants and the State filed Special Leave Petitions before 
this Court. This Court, after granting leave, allowed the appeals of the State 
409 
H 
+ 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A and dismissed the appeals of the appellants-claimants. This Court directed 
\.. 
the Land Acquisition officer to pass an Award within a period of six months 
from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court. 
The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award and published it in a local 
daily newspaper. The appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High Court 
B challenging the Award on the ground that the Award was made after the 
statutory period of two years as contemplated under section llA of the Act 
and hence it is null and void. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions 
holding that the A ward was made withiri the statutory period if the period of 
interim stay granted by the High Court and this Court is not taken into 
C account. Hence the appeals before this Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on a plain 
reading, deals with various modes of publication. There is no option left with 
D anyone to give up or waive any modes and all such modes have to be strictly 
resorted to. Where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for 
doing a particular act, then that thing or act must be done in accordance with 
<, 
the manner prescribed therefor in the Act. The provisions of section 11-A 
are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the Award is made 
within a period of two years from the date ~fthe declaration under section 6 
E of the Act. When the Government fails to make an Award within two years of 
the declaration under section 6 of the Act, the land has still not vested in the 
Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings 
are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of section 11-A of the Act, 
the proceeding will elapse. The period of two years referred to in section 11-
F A of the Act shall be computed by counting from the last of the publication 
dates as per the prescribed modes of publication. The words 'the last of the 
dates of such publication and the i:iving of such public notice being hereinafter 
referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration' under section 6 
(2) of the Act leave no room for assumptions to the contrary. The view by the 
High Court not only runs c

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