MOHAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 936 · Decided: 13-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOHAN AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
MARCH 13, 2007 
B 
[S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
' 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
t 
c 
S.11-A-Period within which award to be made-Held, award has to 
be made within two years from date of publication of declaration-Failure 
lo adhere lo this lime frame is fatal to the award as the provision is mandatory-
It is the date of last publication of declaration u/s 6 which is determinative 
and not any subsequent corrigendum to the said declaration. 
D 
Appellant-land owners challenged the award dated 4.2.2003 contending 
that the last date of publication of declaration under section 6 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 being 28.2.2000, the entire proceedings would stand 
-( . 
lapsed in view of the provisions of section 11-A of the Act. 
The stand of the respondent-State Government was that the corrigendum 
E for the final area proposed to be acquired was issued on 25.1.2003 and, 
therefore the award dated 4.2.2003 was well within time. 
Allowing the appeal of the land owners, the Court 
HELD: In view of Section tlA of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an 
F award has to be made within two years from the date of publication of the 
-i -
declaration under Section 6. Failure to adhere to this time frame is fatal to 
the award, as the provision is mandatory. Under Section I IA what has to be 
seen is the date of last publication of the declaration under Section 6, and not 
any subsequent corrig;endum to the said declaration. 
(Paras 7 and 9] (937-H; 938-A-D] 
G 
', 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1321 of2007. 
\ 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2005 of the High Count 
of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 455 of 
2004. 
H 
936 
MOHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MARKANDEY K.ATJU, J.] 937 
Uday B. Dube (for Kuldip Singh) for the Appellants. 
Sudhanshu Choudhari, Naresh Kumar, S.S. Shinde and V.N. Raghupathy 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal has beeq filed against the impugned judgment of the 
Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 12.4.2005 in Writ Petition 
No.455 of2004. 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
4. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 4.2.2003 
published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Renapur 
Medium Project at village Talegaon (Ghat). The High Court had dismissed 
A 
B 
c 
the writ petition and hence this appeal. 
D 
5. The short point before us is whether the award was illegal in view 
-·t 
of Section I IA of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the 
Act"). 
- )-.. 
·. i 
6. The date of last publication of the notification under Section 4 of the E 
Act was I 8.2.1999 (in Gazette). The last publication of the declaration under 
Section 6 of the Act was 28.2.2000 whereas the award was published on 
4.2.2003. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the award ought 
to have been published on or before 28.2.2000 which was the date of the last 
declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel has invited our 
attention to Section I IA of the Act which states : 
F 
"I IA. The collector shall make an award under Section I I within 
a period of two years from the publication of the declaration and if 
no award is made witbin that period, the entire proceedings for the 
acquisition of the land shall lapse." 
G 
7. In our opinion the submission of learned counsel for the appellant 
is clearly correct in view of the clear provision of Section I IA of the Act. In 
view of Section I I A an award has to be made within two years from the date 
of publication of the declaration under Section 6. Failure to adhere to this 
time frame is fatal to the award, as the provision is mandatory. 
H 
A 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 3 S. C.R. 
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after the declaration 
under Section 6 of the Act dated 28.2.2000 the acquiring body had intimated 
to the Land Acquisition Officer vide its communication dated 2.1.2001 
proposing deletion of some of the area which was proposed to be acquired. 
The original declaration under Section 6 was regarding acquisition of 155.26 
B hectares, but thereafter 107.99 hectares was proposed to be deleted. Hence 
the final area which was proposed to be acquired was to the extent of 36.8 
hectares. Accordingly, a corrigendum to that effect was issued o

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