LexSMT. BAILAMMA@ DODDABAILAMMA (DEAD) AND ORS. versus POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SMT. BAILAMMA@ DODDABAILAMMA (DEAD) AND ORS. B c v. POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND OTHERS JANUARY3I,2006 [B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR. JJ.] land Acquisilion Ac/, 1894-Sections 6, 11, /IA, 12(2), 18 and 30 Award of Colleclor--Prior lo its approval by Covernmenl, declararion under Sec/ion 6 in terms uf which award was made, slayed by Court- Approval by Government on subsequent clarificarion of slay order-Time limil of two years under Sec/ion 11 for making of award from date of pub/icalion of rhe declara/ion--Held: Stay order prevenled the Gowrnmenl D from approving !he award and !he period of opera/ion of rhal order had lo be excluded in computing the period of rwo years-This exclusion was irrespecrive of wherher slay was oblained by land owner or o/her persons Furrher, parly obraining the stay was not precluded from raking its advan/age and obtain exclusion of period for which stay nrder was operational. E Award of Colleclor-Approval by government-Award already signed by Co//ectc-r becomes an award as soon as ii is approved by the Governmenl wirhou/ any alteralion- After approval, ii becomes an offer to be made lo rhe interes/ed persons. but !hereafter under Section I I, rhe Collector is neirher required to sign it again nor give notice to interesled persons of dale of its F pronounceme/1/·--Facl thar ii was no/ pronounced ajier notice in presence of inleresled parties does not invalidale ii, though rhis may have a bearing on limilation regarding reference under Sec/ions 18 or 30-Sec/ion 12(2). A Collector under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made an award on March 13, 1990 and after signing it sent it to the Government for its approval. G Respondent-a House Building Co-operative Society, apprehending that the approval may not be granted within the statutory period thereby resulting in lapse of the award, filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the Government to approve the award. In the said petition, on June 29,1990, an interim order was made staying the operation of the declaration dated June 30,1988 under H 984 ' BAILAM~1A rifi DODDABAILAMMA (DJ 1·. POORNAPRAJ:'\A HOl:SE BUILD CO-OP. SOCIETY 985 "\'. .• Section 6 of the Act, pursuant to which said award was made. On February 7, A )' 1991, High Court clarified that the order of stay shall not prevent the Government from granting approval to the award. On November 16, 1992 the Government granted approval to the award submitted by the Collector. On November 18, 1992 the respondents withdrew their writ petition and thereafter the stay was vacated finally. Notices of the award to the interested persons B were given on November 20, 1992 under Section .12(2) of the Act ¥ Appellants, aggrieved by the award, filed a writ petition for quashing '\. the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that Collector did not formally sign the approved award and inform the concerned parties within the period prescribed by Section llA of the Act viz. two years from date publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act However, High Court held that in terms c of explanation to Section I IA of the Act the period during which the stay order operated had to be excluded, and thereby, the approval was within the period 1 preseribed therein. Hence, the presen,t appeal. • Appellant, inter alia, contended that as the order of the stay was obtained D by respondent themselves, they cannot take any advantage of that order. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD I.I. Reading of the stay order of June 29, 1990 makes it abundantly clear that the operation of the declaration made under Section 6 E of the Act was itself stayed, that is to say, as if no declaration has been made under Section 6 of the Act. Such being the position no steps required to be taken under the Act after publication of the declaration under Section 6 could ~ be taken either by the Collector or by the Government. The Government was, therefore, prevented from approving the award submitted to it by the Collector. F Thus, it was on account of the order of stay passed by the High Court that the Government was prevented from granting approval earlier than February 7, 1991, when it was clarified that the order will not prevent the Government only from giving approval to the draft award pending consideration before it. Once, the order of stay was so modified, the Government granted approval on November 16, 1992. It was not disputed that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.