L.N. VENKATESAN versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 04-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

L.N. VENKATESAN 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
APRIL 4, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 11-A-f'roviso a11d Explanation. 
Land Acquisitio11-Award--Period within which should be 
passed-Computation of period-Land acquisition proceeding-Notification C 
under Section 4(1) published 011 11.6.1975-Declaration under Section 6 
published on March 3, 1978-Writ filed by La11dow11er--lnte1i111 Stay granted 
by Cowt-Conseq11e11tly Land Acquisition Officer could not obtain posses-
sion of lan~Award not made within two years under Section I I-A-Held in 
the circumstances declaration under Section 6 does not get lapsed and D 
consequently 11otificatio11 under section 4( 1) also does not lapse. 
Yusujbhai Noomiohamed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1991) 
SC 2153, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) E 
Nos. 5613-14 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.96 of the Madras High 
Court in W.P. No. 3450/88 & W.M.P. No. 5231 of 1988. 
K.B.S. Rajan for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
These special leave petitions arise from the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Madras High Court, made on July 19, 1996 in 
W.M.P. No. 5231/88. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Ac- G 
quisition Act was published on 11.6.1975. Declaration under Section 6 
was published on March 3, 1978. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 7645/86 
and obtained stay of dispossession. Since the award was not made within 
two years under Section 11-A, he filed another writ petition, viz. W.P. 
No. 3450/88. The High Court holding that the bar of proviso does not H 
661 
-A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997J 3 S.C.R. 
attracts the operation of the stay obtained by the petitioner in the earlier 
writ petition. Therefore, the acquisition does not stand lapsed. Learned 
counsel for the petitioner contends that the interim stay granted was "not 
to dispossess" the petitioner and there is no impediment for the authorities 
to proceed further in passing the award. We find no force in the contention. 
Section 11-A of the Act which reads as follows : 
"11-A. Period within which an 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 proceed-
ings after 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 proceed-
ing to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed 
hy an order of a Court shall be excluded." 
The principle laid down by this Court in Yusufblzai Noomwhamed 
Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1991) SC 2153 is that the owner of 
the land or a person, who is interested in the land and wants to take 
advantage of Section 11-A of the Act, must not have obtained an interim 
order, against the Land Acquisition Officer, of whatsoever nature. The 
relevant portion of the said judgment, which is contained in paragraph 
8 is as followed : 
"The said explanation is in the widest possible terms and, in our 
G 
opinion, there is no warrant for limiting the action or proceed-
ings referred to in the Explanation to actions or proceedings, 
proceeding the making of the award under Section 11 of the 
said Act. In the first place, as held by the learned single Judge 
himself where the case is covered by Section 17, the possession 
H 
can be taken before an award is made and we see no reason why 
L.N. VENKATESAN v. STATE 
663 
the aforesaid expression in the Explanation should be given a A 
different meaning depending upon whether the case is covered by 
Section 17 or otherwise. On the other hand, it appears to us that 
the Explanation is intended to confer a benefit on a land-holder 
whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section is made 
in cases covered by the explanation. The benefit is that the award B 
must be made within a period of two years of declaration, failing 
which the acquisition proceedings would lapse and the land revert 
to the land-holder. In order to get the benefit of the said provision, 
what i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.