TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to desist from taking further steps in the acquisition proceedings. It is undisputed that the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called "the Act"), was published on September 10, 1987 ; that the petitioner/appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 1553 of 1987, challenging the acquisition proceedings ; that a stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the final notification has been granted by the High Court in that writ petition and that the stay was in operation from October 7, 1987, to July 24, 1990. It is also not disputed that, in the meanwhile, the first respondent for certain reasons, thought of dropping the acquisition proceedings. The fourth respondent, Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby preventing the finalisation of the acquisition proceedings that the Explanation to section 11A of the Act would be applicable ; that, in computing the period of two years referred to in section 11A, the period during which some other party might have obtained stay cannot be excluded. In order to appreciate the above contention raised by learned counsel, it would be better to refer to section 11A of the Act, which reads as hereunder : "11A. Period within which 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 : Provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om taking further steps in pursuance of the declaration, whosoever it may be who has secured that order of the court, then, necessarily, the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be held responsible for delaying the proceedings and the proceedings cannot lapse in such a case only because the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration has lapsed. There is no warrant to restrict the application of the Explanation only to a case where the order of stay has been obtained by the landholder. If, in a case like this where a stay has been granted by the High Court at the instance of a party other than the landholder, it would not be logical or reasonable to hold that, in spite of that stay, the Land Acquisition Officer should hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court, it was contended that, under the Explanation, the only period, that could be excluded in computing the 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 and that, as in that case, the court had only stayed the taking of possession, which would arise subsequent to the passing of the award under section 11, that would not serve to exclude any time from the period of two years. Dealing with this contention, the Supreme Court has held as above. It may be noted that the Supreme Court has also emphasised that the Explanation is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the landholder and not by someone else. We are unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that, in the above case, the Supreme Court has laid down that, under the Explanation to section 11A, only the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the declaration is stayed by a court at the instance of the landholder should be excluded and that, if a stay has been obtained by some other party, such period cannot be excluded. On the facts of this case, the learned single judge is right in holding that section 11A of the Act cannot be applied as there was a stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the declaration under section 6 of the Act passed by the High Court in Writ Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
