Maruti Ganpat Jadhav and others vs State of Maharashtra and others

A. P. Shah, J.—The short question which falls for our consideration in this petition under Art. 226 is whether the acquisition proceedings of the petitioners'' lands lapsed in view of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (''the Act'', for short).

The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. The petitioners are the owners of gat Nos. 69/2 and 95/2 situate at village Hivare, Taluka Junnar, District Pune. The Government of Maharashtra issued notification u/s 4 of the Act declaring its intention to acquire an area of 55 acres out of gat Nos. 69/2 and 1 hectare and 8 acres out of gat No. 95/2 for the purpose of resettlement of persons displaced by Kukadi project in Pune district. After considering the objections raised by the petitioners in enquiry u/s 5A of the Act, notification u/s 6 was published in the Government gazette on 18th July, 1987. The notification was published in the local news papers some time in October, 1987 and the parties have proceeded on the assumption that it was also published in the locality round about that time.

The petitioners challenged the notification u/s 6 by filing the present petition on Nov. 10, 1987. On the application made by the petitioners for ad-interim reliefs an order came to be passed that possession of the lands shall not be taken until further orders. The said ad-interim relief which was granted on Nov. 11, 1987 still continues to be operative. In the meanwhile the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 13 appears to have made a report to the District Re-settlement Officer wherein after referring to the pending petition he has opined that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed, since the award has not been declared within two years as provided by Section 11A of the Act.

Before we deal with the submission made at the bar it is necessary to reproduce Section 11A of the Act which was inserted by Section 9 of Act 68 of 1984 and it runs as follows:

"11A. The Collector shall make an award u/s 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 proceeding 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 proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration stayed by an order of a Court, shall be excluded."

The aforesaid section undoubtedly provides that if the award is not made within two years from the publication of declaration, the acquisition proceedings shall lapse. However, explanation to the said section says that the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the declaration is stayed by an order of a court, is liable to be excluded. The question is what is the true scope of explanation.

Mr. Kanade, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the notification u/s 6 of the Act was published in Oct. 1987 and as the award u/s 11 was not made by the Collector within the period of two years from that date of publication, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed. With regard to explanation to Section 11A, it was submitted by Mr. Kanade 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 proceedings are taken in pursuance of the said declaration u/s 6 upto the stage of Section 11 viz., upto the making of the award u/s 11 was stayed by an order of the competent court. It was submitted by him that the question of taking possession would arise after making an award u/s 11 and merely because a land holder obtained an injunction restraining the acquisition authorities from taking possession that would not serve to exclude any time from the aforesaid period of two years within which the award has to be made, since the authorities are free to pass award u/s 11 of the Act.

We are unable to accept the contentions raised by Mr. Kanade. On a bare perusal of Section 11A it is seen that the explanation to the said section is not confined to the stage of 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 proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the declaration u/s 6 is stayed by a competent Court. Explanation to Section 11A clearly enjoins exclusion of the entire period during which any action or proceedings to be taken pursuant to declaration u/s 6 is stayed by an order of the competent Court. The explanation is in the widest possible terms and therefore there is no warrant for limiting the actions or proceedings referred to in the explanation to actions or proceedings preceding the making of the award u/s 11 of the Act.

We may also mention that the point raised by Mr. Kanade is no longer res integra. In almost identical situation in the case of Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya Vs. State of Gujarat and another, Kania, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Bench observed:

"The explanation is intended to confer a benefit on a landholder whose land is acquired after the declaration u/s 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 land-holder. In order to get the benefit of the said provision what is required is that the land-holder who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from a Court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration u/s 6 so that the explanation covers only the cases of those land-holders 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."

The Supreme Court expressly overruled the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of S. Bavajan Sahib Vs. State of Kerala and Others, taking a contrary view.

The Supreme Court has reiterated this view in a recent decision in Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. ect. etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, . There the Supreme Court was considering the question as to whether the award was made within the limitation of two years u/s 60A of the Land Requisition and Acquisition, Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The period of two years was to be computed in terms of Section 11A of the Act which was made applicable by amendment of Section 52. The Supreme Court held that the period during which any proceedings pursuant to the declaration for acquisition is stayed by an order or injunction of Court shall be executed in computing the period of two years. Apart from Section 11A, it was observed by the Supreme Court that it is a well establish principle of judicial procedure that where any proceedings are stayed by an order of a Court or by an injunction issued by any Court, that period should be excluded in computing any period of limitation laid down by law. The principle is normally followed unless the context of the statute provides otherwise. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation to reject the submission of Mr. Kanade that the acquisition proceedings lapsed u/s 11A.

Mr. Kanade fairly conceded that the issue of validity of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 is already covered by a decision of this Court in Dhulgonda Dada Patil and etc. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 15, Kolhapur and Others, . The only other contention raised by Mr. Kanade on merits is that there was a prior partition in the family and, therefore, the slab applied is not correct. There is absolutely no material to prove the partition and, therefore, the contention of Mr. Kanade cannot be accepted.

In the result, petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.