Case: Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nandoliya Vs. State Of Gujarat

an award shall be made. - The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse Provided that in a case where the said declaration 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 Explanation. - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded." * 5. Section 12 deals with the question as to when the award of the Collector becomes final. Section 15 deals with the matters to be considered and matters to be neglected in the determination of the compensation. Section 16 deals with the power to take possession and provides that when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the government free from encumbrances. Section 17 confers powers on the appropriate government to take possession of any land needed for a public purpose and intended to be acquired, although no award has been made, in cases of special urgency 6. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that in the present case the notification under Section 6 of the said Act was published in June 1988 and, as the award under Section 11 was not made by the Collector within a period of two years from the date of the publication, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed. In connection with the Explanation to Section 11-A it was submitted by learned counsel that by the said Explanation the only period excluded in computing the aforesaid period of two years is the period during which any action or proceeding taken in pursuance of the said declaration under Section 6 up to the stage of Section 11, namely, up to the making of the award under Section 11 was stayed by the order of a competent court. It was submitted by him that the question of taking possession would arise after making the award under Section 11 and merely because a landholder obtained an injunction restraining land acquisition authorities from taking possession that would not serve to exclude any time from the aforesaid period of two years within which the award must be made 7. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in S. Bavajan Sahib v. State of Kerala 1988 AIR(Ker) 280 : (1987) 1 Ker LT 836 : 1987 Ker(LJ) 870). In his judgment the learned Singly Judge has taken the view that the action or proceeding contemplated by the Explanation to Section 11-A of the said Act is any action or proceeding to be taken after the making of the declaration under Section 6 and before the passing of the award under Section 11. Such actions are those contemplated by Sections 7 to 10. The question of taking possession of the land arises only when the award is passed under Section 16 of the said Act except in cases of emergency covered under Section 17. It was pointed out by the learned Judge that the case before him was not a case in respect of which Section 17 was applicable and hence, unless there was a stay of the proceedings contemplated by Section 7 to 10 or of further proceedings pursuant to the declaration under Section 6 the Explanation will not operate so as to extend the period of two years prescribed by Section 11-A. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view of the learned. Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment. In the Explanation to Section 11-A of the said Act which prescribes the period which is to be excluded, the expression used is -"the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court" 8. The said Explanation is in the widest possible terms and, in our opinion, 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 said Act. In the first place, as held by the learned Single Judge himself where the case is covered by Section 17, the possession can be taken before an award is made and we see not reason why the aforesaid expression in the Explanation should be given a different meaning depending upon whether the case is covered by Section 17 of otherwise. On the other hand, it appears to us that the Explanation is intended to confer a benefit on a landholder whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section 6 is made in cases covered by the Explanation. 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 revert to the landholder. In order to get the benefit of the said provision what is required, is that the landholder who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from a court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act so that the Explanation covers only the cases of those landholders 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. In our opinion, the Gujarat High Court was right in taking a similar view in the impugned judgment

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. The said Explanation is in the widest possible terms and, in our opinion, 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 said Act. In the first place, as held by the learned Single Judge himself where the case is covered by Section 17, the possession can be taken before an award is made and we see not reason why the aforesaid expression in the Explanation should be given a different meaning depending upon whether the case is covered by Section 17 of otherwise. On the other hand, it appears to us that the Explanation is intended to confer a benefit on a landholder whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section 6 is made in cases covered by the Explanation. 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 revert to the landholder. In order to get the benefit of the said provision what is required, is that the landholder who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from a court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act so that the Explanation covers only the cases of those landholders 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. In our opinion, the Gujarat High Court was right in taking a similar view in the impugned judgment