SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO. LTD. versus VEMUGANTI RAMAKRISHAN RAO & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 658 · Decided: 29-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 658 
SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO. LTD. 
v. 
VEMUGANTI RAMAKRISHAN RAO & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7212-7213 of 2013) 
AUGUST 29, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: 
c 
s. 11-A, Explanation, read with ss. 4 and 6 - Limitation to 
make award - Time taken for obtaining copy of stay order -
Held: Cannot be excluded to bring the award within limitation 
-- Explanation to s. 11-A permits exclusion of the period 
during which the court had stayed the acquisition proceedings 
0 
for the purpose of reckoning the period of two years prescribed 
for making the Award, but it does not provide for exclusion of 
the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the judgment or 
order by which the stay order was either granted or vacated -
s. 12 of Limitation Act has no application to making of an 
award under LA Act - Doctrine of casus omissus also cannot 
E be applied - In the instant case, award made stood elapsed -
Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 12 - Interpretation of Statutes -
Incorporation by reference - Casus omissus. 
Notification u/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
F 1894 was issued on 30.08.1992 for acquisition of certain 
land for the purpose of the appellant, a Government 
company. A final declaration in terms of s. 6 was made 
on 02.03.1994, validity whereof was unsuccessfully 
assailed by four land-owners-respondents in a writ 
G petition before the High Court. The Collector made the 
award on 05.11.1999. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed 
another writ petition challenging the validity of the award 
on the ground that the same was beyond the period of 
two years stipulated uls. 11-A of the Act. The single Judge 
H 
658 
SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO. LTD. v. VEMUGANTI 
659 
RAMAKRISHAN RAO & ORS. 
of the High Court held that the award having been 
A 
passed beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s. 
11-A of the Act, the land acquisition proceedings had 
lapsed. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the 
said view. 
B 
In the instant appeals, it was contended for the 
appellant that the period taken to obtain the copy of the 
order by which the High Court vacated the stay earlier 
granted by it, ought also to be excluded from 
consideration and when so excluded the Award would 
fall within the outer limit of two years stipulated u/s 11-A. 
C 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894, in terms does not provide for exclusion of the time 
D 
taken to obtain a certified copy of the judgment or order 
by which the stay order was either granted or vacated. 
Section 11-A prescribes that in order to be valid, the 
award must be made within a period of two years from 
the date of the publication of the declaration u/s. 6 of the 
Act. Explanation to s. 11-A permits exclusion of the 
period during which the court had stayed the acquisition 
proceedings for the purpose of reckoning the period of 
two years prescribed for making the award. The 
declaration in the instant case was published on 
02.03.1994 while the award was made on 05.11.1999. The 
interim order of stay issued by the High Court on 
06.12.1995 and vacated on 28.07.1999, with the dismissal 
E 
F 
of the writ petition, remained in force for a period of 3 
years, 7 months and 22 days. That period shall have to 
be added to the period of two years prescribed for G 
. making the Award in the light of Explanation to s. 11-A. 
However, even if the said period is added to the time 
allowed for making the award, the same stands beyond 
the period prescribed. [Para 8 and 15] (666-F-G, H; 667-
A-C; 672-C-D] 
H 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 
(2011) 10 SCC 344; Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and Ors. 
v. State of T.N. and Ors. 2002 (2) SCR 383 = (2002) 3 SCC 
533 - relied on. 
8 
N. Narasimhaiah and Ors. v. State of Kamataka and Ors. 
Union of India and Ors. 1996 (1) SCR 698 = (1996) 3 SCC 
88; State of Kamataka v. D.C. Nanjudaiah 1996 (5) Suppl. 
SCR 222 = (1996) 10 sec 619 - stood overruled. 
1.2 Section 12 of the Limitation Act has no application 
C to the making of an award under the Land Acquisition 
Act. In the absence of any enabling provision either in s. 
11-A of the Land Acquisition Act or in the Limitation Act, 
there is no room for borrowing the principles underlying 
s. 12 of the Limitation Act for computing the period or 
D determining the validity of an award by reference to s. 11-
A of the Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.