STATE OF UP AND ORS. versus RAJIV GUPTA AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 14-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.N. RAY

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
RAJIV GUPTA AND ANR. ETC. 
JULY 14, 1994 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 11, 1 lA-Award-f'roposed 
award sent within two years from date of declaration by Land Acquisition 
Officer to ·the Commissioner for prior approval-Such approval not 
C given-Since approval is mandatory, on the expiry of the two years period 
entire proceedings stood lapsed-The date of communication of the proposed 
award for approval-Not to be taken as date of award. 
A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
published on 20.4.1990 p1'oposing to acquire certain lands for construction 
D of sub-station and staff quarters, by the U.P. State Electricity Board. 
Declaration under s.6 was published on 22.12.1990. By virtue of s.llA of 
the Act, the award should have been made within two years from the date 
of publication, I.e. before 21.12.1992. But, before the award could be made, 
!ht respondents liled writ petition before the High Court for a direction 
E to the appellants to take· possession of the lands arter paying compensa-
tion. The High Court directed the appellants to take a decisions for 
passing the award before 21. 12. 1992. The Land Acquisition Officer wrote 
to the Commissioner on 20.12.1992 pointing out the dispute of title to 
certain items of the land under acquisition and to accept the proposed 
conditional award and requested prior approval to pass the proposed 
F award. The approval was not given. The High Court directed the State to 
take possession of the lands and pay the compensation immediately as per 
award dated 20.12.1992. 
In the appeal preferred to this Court, the award was upheld and the 
G 
Land Acquisition Officer was directed to deposit the amount in the refer-
ence court. A review petition was liled stating that no award has been made 
on 20.12.1992. 
On behalf of the appellant-state it was contended that the govern-
ment had issued statutory· order directing that if the value of the acqulsl-
H 1 lion exceeds Rs. 1 crore, the prior approval of the Commissioner, Board 
686 
STATE OFU.P. v. R.GUPTA 
687 
of Revenue was mandatory, and since no prior approval was given before A 
21.12.1992 there was no award made in the eye of law, and what was 
communicated to the commissioner was only a 'proposed award' ff•r 
approval and the date of the communication viz. 20,12.1992 could not be 
taken as the date on which the award was made. 
The Respondents contended that though the award was styled as a 
proposed award, there was no need to get prior approval and so in the eye 
of law there was an award passed under S.11 of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal and the Review Petition, this Court 
HELD : I. The High Court was not right in its construction that 
there was an award made by the Collector on 20.12.1992 and the dire1,tio11 
to take further steps in that behalr are clearly illegal. (692-C) 
B 
c 
2. A bare reading of S.11-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 indicates D 
and emphasises the limitation within which the award should be made and 
has been statutorily determined, namely, the Collector shall make an 
award within a period of two .Years from the date of the publication of the 
declaration. It is a mandatory duty cast on the Land Acquisition Collector 
to make the award strictly in accordance with the limitation under s.llA. 
Ir no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the E 
acquisition of the land shall lapse. (691-E; G] 
3. The State had not produced rules or orders issued under the first 
proviso to s.11 that the Land Acquisition Officer shall not make an award 
exceeding one crore ofrupees without prior approval of the Commissioner, F 
Board or rehnue. But nonetheless, there is a statutory inhibition by first 
proviso to s.11 that the prior approval either of the appropriate govern· 
men.t or of an officer which the appropriate government authorises in that 
behalf, Is mandatory for making an award. It Is a condition precedent. 
Obviously, for this reason, the Collector in his letter dated 20.12.1992, G 
addressed to the Commissioner, seeking prior approval. The heading of 
the award itself clearly indicates working of his that it is only a proposed 
award and after prior approval is given, he is enjoined to make the award 
under s.11 of the Act, Since prior approval was not given before the expiry 
of December 21, 1992 there is no award made by the Land Acquisition 
Officer. (691-D-E-F; 692-

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