M. Ramalinga Thevar vs State of Tamil Nadu and 2 others

The writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant questioning the land

acquisition proceedings initiated on behalf of the third respondent by respondents 1 and 2.

The sum and substance of the case of the appellant is that the award came to be passed more than two years after the date of 6 declaration and

therefore vitiated.

The relevant dates are as follows:

Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act - 27.2.1991. Declaration u/s 6 of the Act - 10.4.1992 and Section 11 award -16.9.1994.

There is absolutely no doubt that the award was passed more than two years after 6 declaration. However, there were proceedings initiated by

the appellant in W.P.No.9715 of 1991 questioning the Notification u/s 4(1) dated 27.2.1991. The writ petition was admitted on 16.7.1991 and in

W.M.P.No.14764 of 1991 an interim stay of dispossession was granted by this Court and the stay was in force till the disposal of the main writ

petition. During the pendency of the main writ petition as already noticed, the award came to be passed and the appellant applied for amendment

of the prayer in W.M.P.No.15438 of 1999 and the same was allowed on 12.7.1991.

The question now is if the award is passed while the order of stay of dispossession is in force whether time would run from the date of section 6

declaration and whether it should have been passed strictly within a period of two years therefrom as contended by the learned Counsel for the

appellant. According to the learned Counsel, the same not having been done, the proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed as per the

provisions of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

It is now settled position that in computing the period of two years referred to in section 11-A of the Act, the period during which any action or

proceedings to be taken to pursuance of the said declaration is stayed, by ah order of a Court shall be excluded. Yusufbhai Noormohmed

Nendoliya Vs. State of Gujarat and another, and Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Vasantha Bai, .

These two decisions and other decisions have been relied on by the learned single Judge for holding that stay of dispossession would tantamount

to stay of further proceedings being taken u/s 11 and the explanation to section 11-A covers such an order granting stay of dispossession also and

the entire period of stay has to be excluded in computing the period of stay has to be excluded in computing the period of two years prescribed u/s

11-A. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no embargo for passing the award immediately after the disposal of the

writ petition. Then if the award is passed during the period the order of stay of dispossession is in force, the requirements of section 11-A would

still be satisfied and it must be deemed that the award has been passed within the time stipulated. It is not necessary to go through the formality of

passing the award once over. Merely because the award came to be passed earlier to the disposal of the writ petition as in the present case it does

not follow that the period of two years has to be construed ignoring the Explanation to section 11-A.

Having regard to the discussion above we hold that there are no merits in the writ appeal and the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned

single Judge is in order. The Writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The stay petition W.M.P.NO.16884 of 1999 is also dismissed.