R. KOLANDAIVELU & ORS . versus THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 11-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 381 
-
... 
R. KOLANDAIVELU & ORS . 
A 
v. 
THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8235 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 11, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
• " 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
c 
s.11A - Object and legislative intent - Discussed. 
s. 11A -
Award -
Limitation -
Land acquisition 
proceedings - s. 6 declaration issued on 23. 12. 1987 - Writ 
petition by land owners - Interim order - Stay for four weeks 
D 
granted on 11.2.1988 - Order of stay of dispossession on 
_,... 
3.7.1991-Award passed on 23.8.1993 - Writ petition finally 
L 
dismissed -
Appeal on the ground that acquisition 
proceedings lapsed due to expiry of two years from date of 
publication of s.6 declaration - Held: Acquisition proceedings 
E 
did not lapse and award was well within time - Two years from 
the date of declaration is to be computed after excluding the 
period when parties approached the court and obtained 
interim stay of such acquisition notices - Both the parties 
-" 
proceeded on the basis that the interim order of stay passed 
initially for four weeks continued till the final order of interim 
F 
stay passed by the High Court on application for vacating 
interim order of stay. 
.. 
Appellants were owners of land under acquisition . 
They filed writ petitions questioning the validity of 
G 
notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and 
Section 6 declaration issued on 23rd December 1987 
.. -* 
before the High Court. In the pending writ petitions, by 
interim order dated 11th Febru:iry, 1988 stay for four 
381 
H 
... 
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A weeks was granted. State-respondent filed application to 
~ -
vacate the stay order. An order of stay of dispossession 
was passed on 3rd July 1991. The award was passed on 
23rd August 1993. Writ petitions were finally dismissed. 
B 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that 
-· 
the interim order of stay was operative only for a period 
of four weeks from 11th February, 1988 to 11th March, 
1988, High Court fell into error in dismissing writ petitions 
in as much as the award passed on 23rd August 1993was 
I • 
c 
clearly beyond the period of two years from the date of 
issuance of declaration under s.6 on 23rd December, 
1997. 
Dismissing ihe appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. Perusal of the relevant provisions of the 
Land Acquisition Act, ~SS4 namely, Sections 6 and 11A 
with its explanation show that the two years from the date 
).- . 
of declaration must be computed after excluding the 
period when parties had approached the court and 
E obtained interim stay of such acquisition notices. At the 
instance of the appellants, the notification issued under 
Section 4 of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 
initially were stayed for four weeks on 11th of February, 
1988, but the Interlocutory Applications remained 
F 
pending for final disposal and finally on the applications 
to vacate the stay order at the instance of the State/ 
, . 
respondents, the applications to vacate the stay were 
disposed of, by an order which clearly shows that the 
order of stay granted initially for four weeks would 
continue pending further orders. Perusal of interim order 
G of the High Court show that there was an order of 
prohibition from dispossessing the appellants from the 
acquired lands pending further orders. [Paras 7 and 10] 
,. ' 
(389-G-H; 390-A-B; 391-G-H; 392-A-B] 
H 
1.2. Considering the nature of interim order of stay 
R. KOLANDAIVELU & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL 
383 
NADU &.ANR. 
·~ -i 
passed by the High Court finally on 3rd of July, 1991, it A 
is abundantly clear that both the parties proceeded on 
the basis that the interim order of stay had been 
continuing and the respondents were prohibited from 
dispossessing the appellants from the acquired lands 
pending further orders. If that was not the case, the B 
question of filing an application for vacating the order of 
stay granted in favour of the appellants could not arise 
.. 
~ 
at all and there was no occasion for the appellants to 
contest the application for vacating the stay order on the 
basis that the interim order of stay was continuing and c 
should be allowed to continue. That apart, it may be 
stated that although initially the interim order was passed 
for four weeks, the same interim order which was granted 
initially was made final until further orders on 3rd of July, 
1991. From the above narration of facts, 

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