MULCHAND KHANUMAL KHATRI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 27-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 586 
MULCHAND KHANUMAL KHATRI 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4990 of 2003) 
MARCH 27, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 11 A [as inserted by Land 
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984] - Limitation period - For 
C passing award u/s. 11 - Computation of - Held : The period 
prescribed u/s. 11 A is mandatory - The period of two years 
commences from the date of publication of declaration and 
where declaration is published before Amendment Act, it is 
from the date of commencement of Amendment Act - The 
D only period excludable is the period during which proceedings 
remained stayed under the order of a court and no other -
s. 11 A being a special provision, provisions of Limitation Act 
and particularly s. 12 thereof cannot be read into it - Hence 
the time taken in obtaining the certified copy of judgment and 
E bringing it to the notice of the authority before passing of award 
uls. 11, will not be excluded - On facts, award having not been 
made within period prescribed u/s. 11 A, the entire acquisition 
proceedings lapsed - Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 12. 
Appellant-the land-owner had challenged the land-
F acquisition proceedings before High Court. He was 
granted interim relief. In the meantime, the Land 
Acquisition Act was amended by Land Acquisition 
(Amendment) Act, 1984. whereby s.11 A was inserted 
prescribing the limitation period within which award 
G could be passed. Thereafter, the High Court dismissed 
the application of the appellant by order dated 11.1.1996. 
The award u/s. 11 was passed on 31.8.1998. 
The appellant challenged the passing of the award 
H 
586 
MULCHAND KHANUMAL KHATRI v. STATE OF 
587 
GUJARAT & ORS. 
· u/s.11, on the ground that the same was passed beyond 
A 
two years from the date of the publication of the 
declaration u/s. 6. The High Court held that the award 
could not be said to have been passed beyond two years 
because the time taken in obtaining the certified copy of 
the judgment of High Court and the period from the date, 
B 
the certified copy was obtained and it was brought to the 
notice of the authority, has to be excluded. 
In appeal to this Court, the question for 
consideration was whether s.11A permits exclusion of 
time taken in obtaining the cer:tified copy of the judgment C 
of High Court and bringing it to the notice of the 
authority. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The period prescribed in Section 11A of 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory. The 
consequence of breach is provided in the provision itself 
viz., the entire acquisition proceedings get lapsed. Insofar 
D 
as computation of the period is concerned, the period of 
E 
two years commences from the date of the publication 
of the declaration. Where the declaration has been 
published before the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 
1984, then 
the 
period 
commences 
from 
the 
commencement of the Amendment Act. The only period 
that is excludable is the period during which the action 
F 
or proceedings to be taken pursuant to the said 
declaration remains stayed under the order of a court 
and no other. Section 11 A is a special provision for the 
purposes of the Act and the legislative intent being clear 
from the bare language of the explanation appended 
G 
thereto, there is no justification to read the provisions of 
the Limitation Act, 1963 and particularly Section 12 
. thereof into it. [para 12] [594-B-D] 
H 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
. 
Ravi Khullar and ~nr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 
,5 sec 231: 2007(4) SCR 598 - relied on. 
2. In the present case, the award having not been 
made within the period prescribed in Section 11 A of the 
8 Act, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the 
appellant's land has lapsed. The High Court was clearly 
in error in excluding the period from January 11, 1996 to 
September 5, 1997 (i.e. time taken in obtaining certified 
copy of the order of High Court and the time taken in 
C placing the same before the authority). This period 
cannot be excluded under explanation appended to 
Section 11A of the Act. [para 13] [594-E-F] 
Case Law Reference: 
D 
2007(4) SCR 598 
Relied on 
Para 11 
·' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4990 of 2003. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.12.2002 of the High 
E Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Special Civil Application No. 
7738 of 1998. 
Subrat Birla, S.C. Birla for the Appellant. 
Hemantika W

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