LILABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting question of interpretation of Sec. 11A and its explanation of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". If the explanation to said section is held applicable to the facts situation obtaining in this petition, the acquisition of parcels of land of the ownership of the petitioner would not lapse. On the other hand, if the explanation is strictly construed so as to hold that it is not applicable to the fact situation obtaining before this Court, the entire land acquisition proceedings would lapse, and the petition must succeed.

(2.) In order to appreciate the rival submissions, which are made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, and particularly the manner in which explanation to Sec. 11A of the said Act is pressed into service by the respondents, it would be necessary to set out relevant facts herein : (i) The parcels of agricultural land bearing S. Nos. 2583 and 2563 situated at village SAVLI in Baroda district were sought to be acquired for the Gujarat State Transport Corporation-respondent No. 3, and a notification under Sec. 4 of the said Act was published on 29/04/1971. After inviting objections and considering the same under Sec. 5 of the said Act notification under Sec. 6 was published on 30/03/1972. It appears that the petitioners instituted Spl. C.A. No. 814 of 1972 challenging the issuance of notification under Sec. 6 of the said Act wherein the Division Bench of this Court granted injunction on 4/05/1972 against further proceedings. Said order of stay which was granted by the Division Bench of this Court came to be vacated on 19/02/1976. (ii) It appears that the issuance of notification under Sec. 6 was challenged by some of the present petitioners by instituting Reg. C. S. No. 332 of 1979 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Baroda. In the said suit an application for temporary injunction against further proceedings of land acquisition was granted on 20/03/1979 and the same came to be vacated after hearing both the parties on 13/06/1983. An appeal from order being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1983 was preferred by the original plaintiffs in the District Court at Baroda and the Asstt. Judge at Baroda dismissed the said appeal on 31/03/1984. It may be stated that during pendency of said A.O. injunction against further proceedings of land acquisition as was granted by the trial Court was continued. The original plaintiffs thereafter preferred C.R.A. No. 792 of 1984 before this Court and on 10/07/1984 said C.R.A. came to be rejected by the learned single Judge of this Court." Thus, from 20/03/197 9/07/1984 there was an order of injunction granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction restraining the authorities under the said Act from proceeding further with the land acquisition proceedings. (iii) It must be mentioned that the aforesaid Reg. C. S. No. 332 of 1979 ultimately came to be dismissed on 19/12/1984 as the plaintiffs of the suit have not pressed the said suit and since the Advocate of the plaintiffs stated to the Court that the plaintiffs were not interested in conducting the suit. The suit was, therefore, dismissed for nonprosecution. In the order which is passed by the trial Court while dismissing the suit on 19/12/1984 it is mentioned by the trial Court that the Advocates of both the parties were present. (iv) It is pertinent to note that though the proceeding before this Court in C.R.A. No. 792 of 1984 terminated on 10/07/1984 and interim relief was vacated, the land acquisition officer and the respondents were not aware of such termination of proceedings before this Court, and in fact, they were given to understand by communication addressed to them by the A.G.P. that the proceedings in the nature of C.R.A. No. 792 of 1984 were pending in this Court and the order of stay was operative. At this stage, it may be mentioned that vigilant and discrete enquiry was made, from time to time, by the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer from the office of the G.P. of this Court and by letter, dated 20/04/1985 the Special Land Acquisition Officer was informed that the C.R.A. No. 792 of 1984 was pending in this Court for final hearing and that as and when the matter will be decided intimation will be sent. I appears that no communication was sent by the office of the G.P. to the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the year 1991 as there was pressing demand from the village people of SAVLI, the officers of the State Road Transport Corporation approached the office of the G.P. in October, 1991 and at that time on making detailed enquiry it transpired that the C.R.A. No. 792 of 1984 was decided as back as 10/07/1984, and that the information supplied by the office of G.P. vide letter, dated 20/04/1985 was patently incorrect. On that very day, i.e., in the month of October, 1991 the certified copy of the order of the learned single Judge was applied for. It was thus in the month of October, 1991 that the respondentauthorities came to know that there was no stay operating against further proceedings of land acquisition and thereafter it immediately took action for the purpose of declaration of award which came to be declared on 12/12/1991. (v) Notices of making the award under Sec. 12(2.) were issued to the persons interested on 4/12/1991 calling upon such persons to remain present before the Land Acquisition Officer on 12/12/1991, and the present petitioners bad remained present before the Land Acquisition Officer on 12/12/1991. On the date of award the petitioners accepted the amount of award of compensation without prejudice to their rights and contentions, and subsequently they had applied for reference to the Collector under Sec. 18 of the said Act, and accordingly the references were made to the District Judge, Baroda by the competent authority on 19/02/1992. (vi) It is also not disputed before us that on 10/12/1991 the possession of the land is taken over from the petitioners and in view of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has while entertaining this petition refused interim relief, the G.S.R.T.C-respondent No. 3 has already commenced construction. The extent of progress made in the making of construction is not exactly known to this Court.

(3.) In the aforesaid fact situation Mr. A. J. Patel appearing for the petitioners has urged before this Court that the entire land acquisition proceedings commencing from the issuance of notification under Sec. 4 as back as 29/04/1971 have lapsed by virtue of operation of Sec. 11A of the said Act, inasmuch as, the award which was required to be made under Sec. 11 within a period of 2 years from the date of the publication of declaration was not made within the said period. He submits that the final declaration of intention to acquire the land was made when notification under Sec. 6 was published on 30/03/1972 while the award is made on 12/12/1991. Section 11A came to be introduced in the Statute Book in the year 1984 when by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 was passed and the said Sec. 11A cams into force with effect from 24/09/1984. Since no period of limitation for making award was prescribed prior thereto, the land acquisition proceedings can be legitimately said to have continued till that date, but after coming into force of the said Amendment Act and after Sec. 11A became operative, the award was required to be made within a period of two years from the date of the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The date of commencement of said Act is 29/09/1984, and since award was not made within a period of two years from that date the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse and have, in fact, lapsed, submits Mr. A. J. Patel, learned Advocate for petitioners.