M RAMALINGA THEVAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(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.

(3.) 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 under section 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 under section 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 1 1-A.