PETITIOINER 1) géixwgia @w% é (Q MC (@6 Z,_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 9/115 72008 Roop singh S/o. shrichandrabhan CulTivaTor‘, Ages abouT 32 year‘s, R/o.ViHage ~ Jhikabahar‘ PosT- Ligar'a, P.S. Tamnar Tahsil — Ghar‘ghoda Dis’r‘r. Raigar'h (CG) VERSUS The STaTe of Chha’rTisgar'h, Through; — Secre’rar‘y, Deparfmen’r of Revenue, D.K.S. Bha'wan, Raipur (CG) CollecTor' / Incharge Land AcquisiTion Officer Raigarh, Raigarh (C.G.) Land Acquisi’rion Officer/ 5.D.O. Gharghoda DisTT. Roigur‘h (C.6.) Jila Vyapar & Udyog Kendra Raigarh, Through iTs Managing Direc’ror Raigarh (C.G.) M/s Jindal Power L‘rd. Through i‘rs Managing DirecTor, Tamnar Raigarh (6.6.) Naib Tahsildar 3) 4) 5) 6) 7 & . Tamnar, Dis’trict-Raigarh(c.e.) Station House Officer, Police Sta‘rion — Tamnar Distric’r — Raigarh (CG) 7) N WRIT PETITION IN THE NATURE OF UNDER N ARTICLES 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRITIDIRECTION AND/OR ORDER A “1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH B!LASPUR WRIT PETITIONjC) NO.2116 OF 2008 PETI'HONER Roop Singh VersUs ESEQNDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ ition nder Artile 6 of the Constitution idia) Sgle Beh : Hn’ie Sri as. Agnihotri, . Pre :v Anj huj, vocate the etitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaur, Panel Lawer fo the State. Shri B.D. Gr, Advocate for the respondent No.5. uu (Passed tis y of July, 2010) se of he petitoner is that whther the proceengs iniad under the provisions of the and Acquisition Ac, 1894 (for shrt “t Act, 1984) by publishi notification uer Section 4(1) of the ct, 894 an teafter und Section 6 of the Act, 1894 sll reman lid, if he ward has not been psed within a period of two years rom the daé of pblicaion th declaration under the proviss f Secti Ca t i e di itte L t o he ng nd A 1 d her er ha i va t a as f t ut of e ion o on 11A of the Act, 1894. The facts involved in this cas are indisputable. Notification was publis on 24/03/2007 (Annexure P/1) under ection 4) of the ct, 1894 exessing inention to acquire the land situated in village Jhinkbahal, Patwari Halka No. 41, Revenue Circle Tamna, Tahsil~t x Ghghoda, District—aigarh o the extent of 8.172 Hecare. The n d M hed S (1 A pr t a r ar R t t reafter, the declaration under Sectio 6 was publishe on 26th ay, 2007 (Annexure R/1). After having taken other necessary steps under the provisions of la, admittedly, no award has been passed till date i.’e 28/07/2010. Shri Guru, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 also submits that no award has yet been passed. Thus, the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, 1894 comes into play, as more than two years have already lapsed without passing the award. Section 11A of the Act, 1894 reads as under : “11A. Period within which an award shall be made.- (1) The Collector shall make an award under section 11 Within a period of two years from the date of the publication of thec/eclaration and if no award is made Within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse .' rl R Pet u c 22 of n in nc ob h Stih'K J esnt Ms. u Aa Ad for p di y r ORDER (ORAL) on h 28‘“ da e w Provided that in a case Where the said declarafion has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made Within a period of two years from such commencement.” As afore-stated the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1984 was published on 26th May, 2007 till completion of two years i.e. on or before 25th May, 2009, no award was passed and as such under provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, 1894, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Since the land has not been acquired as award has not been passed and as such land is still in possession ofthe owner. The Supreme Court in Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by LRs v. State of U,P. and Others1, observed as under: “1 7. The provisions of Section 11-A are intended to benefit the landowner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of the declaration under Section 6. In ordinary course, therefore, when the Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its tit/e remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 1 1-A, the proceedings will lapse. The period of two years preferred to in Section 11-A shall be computed by counting from the last of the publication dates, as per the prescribed modes ofpub/ication. " The aforesaid ratio has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Ravi Khullar and Another v. Union of india and Othersz, Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and Others3, Mohan and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others4 and Lok Sewa Shikshan Mandal v. AR. Mundhada Charitable Trust and Others5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of law, the entire land acquisition proceedings are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to that extent. No order asto costs. K l Sdl- i iSatish K.Agnihetri l Judge 2 1 42007) 5 soc 85 (2007) 5 soc 231 3 (2007) 7 scc 555 4 (2007) 9 soc 431 5 (2007) 9 scc 779