KALIYAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A piece of land measuring ten and a half cents situated at Kozhippathi Village of Chittur Taluk, Palghat District, State of Kerala originally belonged to Indrani, wife of the petitioner and it now belongs to the petitioner. Under a preliminary notification issued under S. 3(l) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act on 24-2-1981 the said piece of land along with some other lands was proposed to be acquired for a certain public purpose. Both Indrani and the petitioner filed objections to the proposed acquisition. After overruling the objections the State Government published a declaration under S. 6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act on 19-1-1984. On 24-9-1984 the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 passed by Parliament came into force in the State of Kerala and some other parts of India to which it applies. By S. 9 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act. 1984 a new section, i.e., S.11-A was introduced into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which reads thus :

(2.) The two grounds on which the acquisition proceeding was challenged by the petitioner and his wife before the High Court were : (i) that the award not having been made within a period of two years from the date of the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, that is, 24-9-1984, as required by the proviso to S. 11 A of the Act, the acquisition proceeding should be deemed to have lapsed; and (ii) that the land acquisition proceeding was liable to be quashed on the ground that there was inordinate delay in making the award.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner and his wife before the High Court was that the notice of the award having been served on him on 30th September, 1986 it must be held that the award was actually made on 30th September, 1986 and since more than two years had elapsed from 24-9-1984, from the date on which the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into force by the time the notice of award was served on him, the acquisition proceeding should be declared as having lapsed by virtue of the proviso to S. 11-A of the Act. In support of his contention the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, (1962) 1 SCR 676 : (AIR 1961 SC 1500) in which this Court had taken the view that for purposes of calculating the period of limitation prescribed for making an application requesting the Collector to refer the question relating to the valuation of the land acquired under the Act to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Act, the date on which the notice of the award was served on the owner of the land should be treated as the date of the award and that the period of limitation should be counted from the date of the service of the said notice. Both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have declined to accept the said contention and we think rightly. Before the insertion of the new section. i.e.. S. 11-A of the Act there was no provision corresponding to it in the Act which provided for the period within which an award should be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, that is, the Collector under the Act. Since in a large number of cases there used to be abnormal delay in making the award, Parliament stepped in and introduced S.11-A to the Act which is set out above. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the Bill introducing the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 by which S. 11-A was introduced into the Act it was stated that "the pendency of aquisition proceedings for long periods often causes hardship to the affected parties and renders unrealistic the scale of compensation offered to them". It was further stated in it that "it is proposed to provide for a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under S. 6 of the Act within which the Collector should make his award under the Act. If no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land would lapse." Pursuant to the above object S. 11-A of the Act was enacted. It provides that the Collector shall make an award under S. 11 of the Act 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. In the case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the award shall be made within two years from such commencement. We are not concerned with the rest of the provisions of S. 11 -A of the Act in this case. The crucial words which require to be interpreted are "the Collector shall make an award" appearing in S. 11 -A and the words 'the award shall be made' in the proviso to S. 11-A. The statute prescribes the maximum period of two years for making an award from the date of the publication of the declaration under S. 6 of the Act and further attaches a condition that if the award is not made within the said period the proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Similarly in the case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the award shall be made within two years from such commencement and if the award is not so made the proceeding for acquisition shall lapse. Thus it is seen that the consequence of not making an award within the period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration or from the date of the commencement of the Act, as the case may be, is that the entire project for which the land is acquired will have to be abandoned or if it is intended to proceed with the project for which the land had been originally notified for acquisition it would become necessary for the Government to restart the proceedings once again with the publication of a fresh preliminary notification under S. 4 of the Act or the corresponding provision in any local statute in force in a State. If the date of the communication of the notice of the award to the person interested in the land is treated as the date of making the award then the maximum period prescribed under S. 11-A of the Act for making the award would get reduced by the period required for serving the notice of the award on the owner of the land. Such maximum period may vary from one case to another. Even in the same land acquisition case if a notice of the award is to be served on two or more persons interested in the land the maximum period for making the award may vary from person to person interested in the property depending upon the date of service of notice of the award on each one of them. If the person interested in the land is an unwilling person who is interested in defeating the land acquisition proceeding it is likely that it may not be possible to serve him with the notice of the award at all within the prescribed time and if he can avoid the service of said notice until the period of two years is over from the date of the publication of the declaration under S. 6 of the Act or the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act. 1984, as the case may be insofar as his interest in the land is concerned, the proceedings for the acquisition would lapse thus affecting seriously the public interest. It would also lead to absurd and inconvenient results since the acquisition proceeding may be valid against some persons and may become invalid in the case of some others.