YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMED NENDOLIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Counsel heard.

(2.) This appeal raises an interesting question regarding the interpretation of Section 11 -A of the Land Acquisition Act,. 1884 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Section 11 -A was inserted into the.said Act by Section 9 of Act 68 of 1984.

(3.) The relevant facts lie within a very narrow compass. The appellant is the occupant of lands 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 No. 2 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 about that time. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated in the High Court that such publication took place sometime 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 No. 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 No. 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 No. 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 the 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 exclusions 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.