Case: Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nandoliya Vs. State Of Gujarat

3. The relevant facts lie within a very narrow compass. The appellant is the occupant of land comprising survey Nos. 864 and 687 respectively of village Samal Pati in Patan Taluka of Mehsana District in Gujarat. The said lands were sought to be acquired by the State of Gujarat, respondent 1 herein, for the purpose of the North Gujarat University. The Notification under Section 6 of the said Act in respect of the said lands was issued on May 12, 1988. The parties proceeded on the assumption that it was published in the locality around that time. The learned counsel for the appellant stated in the High Court that such publication took place some time in June 1988, and the parties as well as the Court proceeded on the footing that the said statement is correct. The appellant challenged the said notification by filing Special Civil Application No. 4342 of 1988 in the High Court of Gujarat. On the prayer for interim relief made by the appellant for the stay of the operation and implementation of the said notification, the Gujarat High Court granted only a limited interim relief by restraining respondent 1 from taking possession of the said lands of the appellant pending admission of the said special civil application. The said interim relief, which was granted on August 9, 1988, still continues to be operative. In the meantime, respondent 2, being the Land Acquisition Officer concerned, issued a notice under Section 9(1) of the said Act and proceeded to determine the compensation after hearing the objections. In the inquiry held by respondent 2 in respect of the objections the appellant took up the contention that, as two years had elapsed after the publication of the notification making the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, and no award had been made within the said period, all acquisition proceedings in respect of the said lands lapsed and the acquisition proceedings were exhausted. The said contention of the appellant was rejected by the land acquisition authorities. The appellant challenged this decision of the land acquisition authorities by filing the Special Civil Application No. 7685 of 1990 in the High Court of Gujarat. The challenge made by the appellant to the continuance of the acquisition proceedings was repelled by the Gujarat High Court relying on the decision of an earlier Division Bench of that Court comprising of R.C. Mankad and K.J. Vaidya, JJ. in Special Civil Application No. 4314 of 1990. It was held by the Division Bench that Section 11-A of the said Act enjoins exclusion of the entire period during which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to a declaration under Section 6 is stayed by an order of a competent court. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court took the view that the Explanation to Section 11-A is not confined to the staying of the making of the award pursuant to Section 6 of the notification, but it is widely worded and covers in its sweep the entire period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6, is stayed by a competent court. It is the correctness of this decision, which is assailed before us

Reasoning:
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