LexYUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMED NENDOLIYA versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMED NENDOLIYA
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
SEPTEMBER 17, 1991
B
[M.H. KANIA, N.M. KASLIWAL AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Section I 1-A-Explanation--lnterpretation of-Acquisition of land-
~
C proceedings-~'hen /apse--Two-Year period for making of award-Com-
putation of--{i'hether entire period during which any action or proceedings
pursuant to declaration under Section 6 remained stayed to be excluded.
A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
published in respect of lands under t~e appellant's occupation. The
D appellant challenged the notification before the High Court and prayed for
an interim stay of operation and implementation of the 8'1tification.
Pending admission of the appellant's Special Civil Application, the.High
Court granted limited interim relief by restraining the respondent from
taking possession of the lands. Meanwhile Respondent No. 2, the Land
Acquisition Officer, issued a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act and
E proceeded to determine the compensation. In the enquiry, he rejected the
appellant's objection that as two years had elapsed after the publication of
the notification and no award had been made within the said period, all
the acquisition proceedings lapsed and were exhausted. The High Court
also rejected the appellant's appeal, relying on the decision of a Division
F
Bench of the High Court, that Section 11-A of the aforesaid Act enjoined
exclusion of the entire period during which any action or proceeding to be
taken pursuant to a declaration under Section 6 was stayed by an order of
a competent court, and that the Explanation to the Section was not
confined to the staying of the making of the award, pursuant to Section 6
of the notification, but it was widely worded and covered in its sweep the
G entire period during which any action or proceeding was stayed by a
competent Court.
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was
contended that by Explanation to Section 11-A the only period excluded in
H computing the period of two years was the period during which any action
158
---i
YUSUFBHAI
v.
STATE
159
or proceeding taken in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 upto
the making of the award under Section 11 was stayed and that the question
of taking possession could arise after making the award and merely
because the landholder obtained an injunction restraining land
acquisition authorities from taking possession that could not serve to
exclude any time from the period of two years within which the award must
be made.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: The Explanation to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, which prescribes the period to be excluded while computing the
period of two years within which the award has to be made, 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. In the first
place, where the case is covered by Section 17, the possession can be taken
before an award is made and there is no reason why the expression "the
period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of
the said declaration is stayed by an order by a Court", in the Explanation
should be given a different meaning, depending upon whether the case is
covered by Section 17 or otherwise. On the other hand, the Explanation is
intended to limit the benefit conferred by Section 11-A on a land-holder
whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section 6. The benefit
is that the award must be made within a period of two years of the
declaration, failing which the acquisition proceedings would lapse and the
land would rev,ert to the land-holder. In order to get the benefit of the said
provision what is required, is that the land-holder who seeks the benefit
must not have obtained any order from a court restraining any action or
proceeding in pursuance Qf the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act
so that the operation of the beneficial provisions of Section 11-A is
confined to cases of those land-holders who do not obtain any order from a
court which would delay or prevent the making of the award or taking
possession of'the land acquired. [163 E-H, 164 A]
The High Court was, therefore, right in rejecting the appellant's
challenge toExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.