LexLOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL versus A.R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL A v. A.R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST AND ORS. APRIL 9, 2007 [C.K. THAKKER AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.] B ·~ Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 1 IA-Explanation t'a-Stay of proceedings-Nature of stay order-Writ petition challenging acquisition proceedings admitted by issuing rule nisi and rule also issued on stay- C Subsequently, on matter coming up for hearing on rule on stay, Court ordered that if respondent in petition proceeded with construction of building, it will be subject to decision of petition-Held: Court had not granted stay against any proceeding-Merely Rule was issued on prayer of stay made in petition- Case was covered by main part of Section 1 I A and not explanation thereto-- As award by Collector was not made within two years from date of publication D of final notification under Section 6, proceedings lapsed Appellant approached the Government requesting for acquisition of land for school as also for garden. Government took necessary proceedings in accordance with law for the acquisition ofland of two Survey Nos viz. Survey No. 186/4A ad measuring 59 ares of land for school and Survey No.187 /3A E admeasuring 30 ares of land for garden. With regard to land earmarked for garden for the school, the first respondent petitioned the High Court contending that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer had not been passed in accordance with the provisions of Section llA of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the proceedings had lapsed. The said contention was upheld by the F High Court and it was ruled that after the final notification under Section 6 of the Act, award ought to have been made within period of two years as required by Section llA, which was not done. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present appeal. Appellant contended that (i) the acquisition was challenged by the first G respondent by instituting a Writ Petition which was entertained by the High -Court, and in view of pendency of proceedings, r10 award could be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer; (ii) as first respondent had questioned the - legality of the proceedings, they cannot take undue advantage of their own 1007 H 1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. A delay thereby; (iii) as interim relief was granted by High Court, the case was -:t' covered by Explanation to Section HA and not by the main provision of Section l lA; (iv) even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that no actual stay was granted by the High Court when the petition was admitted, interim relief was granted when matter came up for hearing on rule for stay; (v) even if stay was limited to maintenance of status quo or against dispossession of the B owner, extension of period of limitation would apply; (vi) the Registry of High Court in pursuance of the writ issued by High Court communicated to them an interim order; (viii) the Land Acquisition Officer was of the view that the acquisition proceedings could not continue due to stay granted by the Court and he proceede<J to dispatch the relevant files to the Government Advocate of C the High Court; (viii) when the appellant sought from the Land Acquisition Officer information on the file movement of the acquisition proceedings in the High Court, he had replied that the proceedings were stayed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD 1. The High Court was right and wholly justified in holding that there was no stay of any proceeding and hence, Explanation to Section HA had no application. If it is so, it cannot be held that the High Court had ~- committed an error of law or misconstrued Section l lA by holding that since award was not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of final notification under Section 6 of the Act, the proceedings lapsed. E [Para 32] (1022-C-DJ Yusujbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, (1991] 4 SCC 531, Government ofT.N. & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai, (1995] Supp 2 SCC 423, M Ramalinga Thevar v. State ofT.N. & Ors., [2000) 4 SCC 322 and Bailamma F (Smt.)@ Doddabailamma (dead) & Ors. v. Poornaprajna House Building Coop. Society, (2006) 2 SCC 416, relied on. 1 Kam/a Pandey v. Collector, Agra & Ors., (1989) A WC 686, disapproved 2.1. It is necessary to consider the nature of order passed by the High G Court when the acquisition proceedings were challenged by the first respondent. Now from the record, it is clear that the first respondent filed Writ Petition No. 810o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.