TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, M. Veerappa and S.N. Bhatt for the Respondents. JUDGMENT: KANIA, M.H. The following Order of the Court was delivered: A few facts are necessary for the disposal of these petitions. The petitioners were the owners of certain lands which were acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded . It was, inter alia contended by the petitioners that as the awards in these cases has not been made within two years of the notification making the declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed. That contention was repelled along with certain other contentions in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade within two years from September 20, 1984. On September 11, 1985, the petitioners obtained an interim order from this Court directing status quo with regard to the possession of the lands in question in Special Leave Petition No. 294 of 1985 preferred against the order of the Karnataka High Court dated August 14, 1984, with which we are not directly concerned here. The said Special Leave Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of that High Court, and obtained an interim stay of dispossession therein. Whatever the ultimate effect of the stay orders, in view of the provisions of Section 11 -A of the Land Acquisition Act, to which we have already referred earlier, it is beyond dispute that the fact of the stay orders was highly material in the determination of these Special Leave Petitions. Curiously enough, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
