LexM. RAMALINGA THEVAR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M. RAMALINGA THEVAR A v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. APRIL 19, 2000 [K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] B J( Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections II-A and 6-Computation of- Period within which award to be made after publication of declaration- Period during which any action, taken pursuant to the declaration, if stayed by the court is excluded from the period of two years within which award to c be made-If possession is stayed it is to be excluded-Further position remains same even when claimant's dispossession stayed. ,, .,. A notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published. The appellant challenged the notification in writ petition. The High Court stayed the dispossession of the appellant from the prop- D erty. During the pendency of the petition, the government published decla- ration under Section 6 of the Act. But the land acquisition collector passed award only after expiry of two years from date of publication of the declaration. Aggrieved, appellant went in appeal. High Court excluded the time during which the proceedings for dispossession had been stayed and E held that the award was passed within the permitted two years period. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. The acquisition proceedings willlapseifno award is made F within the period of two years from the date of the publication of the decla- ration. The period of exclusion from the time of two yearsis the period during which "any action or proceedings'' to be taken in pursuance of the declara- ti on is stayed as per the explanation to section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Taking possession is one of the actions to be adopted as follow-up meas- G ore pursuant to the declaration envisaged in Section 6 of the Act. So when ~ there is stay regarding any of the actions to be taken pursuant to the decla- ration then the consequence oflapse would not happen. [169-C; F -HJ Yusujbhai Noonnohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, [1991) 4 SCC 531, relied on. H 167 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R. A 1.2. When dispossession· alone is stayed by the Court the period during such stay operates would stand excluded from the time fixed passing the award, the expiry of which would render the acquisition proceedings lapsed. (171-D-E] Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka, [1994) 4 SCC B 145, relied on. Government of Tamil Nadu v. Vasantha Bai, (1995) Supple. 2 SCC 423, )(. referred to. CIVIL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2721 of 2000. c From the Judgment and Order dated 29 .10.99 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 2010 of 1999. N. Sundaravaradan, R.N. Keshwani, Chandra Kanta Nayak and Ramlal .,. Roy for the Appellant. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted. A Land AcqUisition Collector passed award only after the expiry of two A E years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act'). The owner of the land wanted a declaration that proceedings for acquisition covered by the said publication stood lapsed on the expiry of the said period of two years. But a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras which the owner of the land F approached for such a relief, repelled his contentions. The High Court took into account the time during which proceediilgs for taking possession of the land were stayed by an order passed in a writ petition. When that period was excluded from the time fixed for passing the award the Division Bench held that the award was passed within the permitted range of time. The owner of the land challenges the said judgment in this appeal. G After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we did not find the 1 necessity to issue notice to the respondent State as the appeal can be disposed .).. of without resorting to such a course. A notification under Section 4( 1) of the Act was published in the gazette H on 27.2.1991. That notification was challenged by the appellant in writ ' M.R. TREVAR v. STATE [THOMAS, J.] 169 petition No.9715 of 1991 which he filed before the High Court of Allahabad on 16. 7 .1991. On the same day an order was passed by the High Court staying dispossession of the appellant from the property involved. Despite the pendency of the said writ petition the Government published declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 10.4.1992. But the award was passed only o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.