THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS versus M/S MOTI RATAN ESTATE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 04-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
v.
M/S MOTI RATAN ESTATE AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 6996 of  2019 etc.)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
s. 11A  -  Applicability of  - Failure to declare award u/s. 11
within a period of 2 years from the date of publication of
declaration u/s. 6, due to stay order by High Court in respect of
land belonging to other land-owners  -  Whether would attract s.
11A  -  Held: If there is stay over the land acquisition proceedings
by the Court, in one or the other matter arising from the self-same
acquisition proceedings in reference to s. 4 followed by s. 6, the
authorities would be justified to stay their hands and await decision
of the Court - Period during which there is stay over the
proceedings, has to be excluded, in computing the statutory period
of two years in passing of an award u/s. 11  -  In the present case,
the case in which the High Court had stayed the proceedings was
in respect of the land of same village under the very notification
and for the very project  -  The period during which the stay was
operative,is to be excluded - On exclusion of the said period,
acquisition proceedings would not lapse,in view of explanation to
s. 11A - Limitation.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. When the scheme of the acquisition is one,
interim stay granted in respect of one pocket of land would
operate even with respect to other pockets of land and in such
a situation the authorities are justified in not proceeding with
the acquisition proceedings and therefore the acquisition
proceedings would not lapse. Interim order of stay granted in
respect of one of the land owners would have a complete
restraint for the authorities to proceed further. When the stay
has been granted in one matter and where the scheme was one,
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 589
589
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
the authorities were justified to stay their hands.   [Para 7.5 (i),
(ii) and (iii).] [604-D-F]
2. The extended meaning of the words “stay of the action
or proceedings under Section 11A of the Act” would mean that
any interim effective order passed by the court which may come
in the way of the authorities to proceed further.  Explanation to
Section 11A of the Act is  in the widest possible terms and there
is no warrant for limiting the action or proceedings, referred to
in the explanation, to actions or proceedings preceding the
making of the award under Section 11 of the Act and therefore
the period of injunction obtained by the land holders staying the
acquisition and authorities from taking possession of the land
has to be excluded in computing the period of two years.  [Para
7.5 (iv) and (v)] [604-G-H; 605-A]
3. Merely because when award was declared, the lands
with respect to Writ Petition Nos. 3051/2013 and 3159/2013 were
excluded and therefore, it cannot be said that the period during
which the stay was operating in the aforesaid Writ Petitions shall
not be excluded. The words “stay of the action or proceedings
under Section 11A of the Act” would mean that any order of stay
in one or the other matter if passed by Court of law, which either
prohibits or prevents the State authorities from passing of an
award, such a period of stay of action/proceedings deserves to
be excluded while computing the statutory period of two years
in passing of an award by the authority under Section 11 of the
Act.  Even otherwise, there was already a stay of possession in
Writ Petition No. 7867/2012 and therefore the authorities were
justified in not proceeding further with the acquisition
proceedings. [Para 7.6] [605-C-E]
4. It is true that there is no bar to have more than one
declaration under Section 6 or the award under Section 11 of the
Act in reference to the self-same acquisition proceedings
initiated under Section 4 followed with Section 6 of the Act but
if there is a stay of the proceedings by a Court of law in any of
the matter, that certainly prevents the authorities in taking its
decision to complete the acquisition proceedings within the
statutory period as mandated by law in passing of award within
two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the
Act. [Para 7.7] [605-F-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
5.  Thus, if there is any stay over the action or proceeding
by a Court of law, in one or the other matter arising from the
self-same acquisition proceedings in reference to Section 4
followed with Se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.