THE GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM versus JACOB, S/O KOCHUVARKEY KALLIATH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 01-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
THE GENERAL MANAGER. DEPARl MENT OF 
TELECOMM UN !CATIONS. TH IR UV AN A NTHA PURAM 
v. 
JACOB. S/0 KOCHlJVARKEY KALLIATH (DEAD) BY LRS. 
AND ORS. 
APRIL I. 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI. JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, I 894 : 
Sections 4, 6(2) and II A-Acqui.\ition proce<!dings--Period lVithin which 
award has to be made--Held, Collector has to puss un mwrd within a period 
of two years from date of publication of dec:laratiun otherwise the emire 
acquisition proceedi(1gs of/and will lapse·--Fur purpose of making an award 
D under Section I lA date of publication is !he last of the series of publication 
referred to in Section 6(2). 
Section I 1.-i'-Cuurl in earlier proct>edin[.;s intervening at the hstance (d' 
the appl icant-Dir:xt ing the Vllthoritles to pass un mrard in acquisition 
proceedings within stipulated time·-Piea thut since the awurd not passed 
E within time gramed by Court. proceedings !upsed-fleld: From the nuture 
,.md purport of the orders pussed or from their contents it wnnot be inferred 
that they imposed tutu! ~·mhargo upon the competent awhorities to exercise 
statutory powers indisputah~l' vested wllh and uvuilable to such authority 
under the statute. at thf! lime oj such exercise-Land Acquisition Acl, I 894. 
F 
Notification was issued with regard to acquisition of land in question 
on 31.7.1984. Thereafter, acquisition proceedings were initiated and final 
award was passed nine years later. Meanwhile, there were intervening 
court pro~eedings and interim orders were passed therein which prevented 
the authorities from proceeding with acquisition proceedings. In a petition 
G filed by land owner-; court directed to complete acquisition proceedings 
and pass an award within six months which was further extended. 
Thereafter, dedaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was 
published in the daily newspapers on 21.5.1992. Award enquir~ was being 
condurted from ti:ne to time and as the proceedings were in progress 
another petition was filed. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the same 
ll 
214 
_ .. 
r 
GEN. MANAGER, DEPT. OF TELECOMMUNICA TJONS v. JACOB 
2]5 
holding that since the landowners have instituted series of litigations A 
questioning the acquisition proceedings at one stage or another, th~re is 
no merit in the challenge made to the acquisition proceedings having lapsed 
under Chapter 11-A of the Act. Division Bench held that the acquisition 
proceedings initiated to acquire the land in question by publishing a 
Notification dated 31.7.1984 have lapsed due to delay in passing the award 
and set aside the proceedings with liberty to the authorities to take fresh B 
acquisition proceedings. 
Appellant-department contended that the acquisition proceedings 
culininating in the award made on 27.8;]993 could not be held to have 
lapsed by the mandate of Section II-A of the Act; that having regard to C 
the intervening court proceedings and interim orders passed therein, two 
years period for purposes of Section 11-A would be calculated only from 
the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 in the daily 
newspapers on 21.5.1992 which is last of the series of pu hlication; and that 
the Division Bench erred in overlooking the need to construe Section II-
A in the light· of the legislative mandate engrafted in Section 6.. 
D 
Respondents-land owners contended that the judgment of the 
Division Bench does not call for any interference since the award was 
passed beyond the time judicially granted by the High Court in the earlier 
proceedings and inasmuch as the decision/orders earlier made in such 
proceedings are binding inter-parties and, therefore, no umbrage could E 
be taken under the statutory provisions in derogation of the orders of 
Court which gave time to pass the award within a stipulated time. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Division Bench committed a patent error, despite 
the decision of this Court reported in *Eugenio Misquita v. State of Goa 
F 
on a literal construction of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, by 
proceeding on an hypothesis that if the Collector who was obligated to 
make an Award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the 
date of the publication of the declaration, the entire proceedings for the G 
acquisition of the land shall lapse, completely overlooking the mandate 
contained in sub-section (2) of Section 6 that of the various modes of 
publication envisaged therein, 

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