RAJIV JAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Government issued a notification dated 18. 12. 2001, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that the land of the petitioners in dispute in this petition was needed for a public purpose, namely, for planned industrial development. A copy of the notification has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which indicates that the powers of Section 17 (4) of the Act had been invoked. This notification was followed by a notification dated 31. 1. 2002, under Section 6 of the Act read with Section 17 (1) of the Act. THE possession of the land was taken on 14. 3. 2002 and this fact is not disputed by the petitioners. THE award of compensation was made on 24. 9. 2005.

(2.) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition for a direction declaring the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the notification dated 18. 12. 2001, under Section 4 of the Act and the notification dated 31. 1. 2002, under Section 6 of the Act as having lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 11 -A of the Act.

(3.) THAT was a case in which the correctness of the views of the Kerala High Court interpreting the provisions of the Explanation to Section 11-A of the Act was considered by the Apex Court. The Kerala High Court had taken a view that the Explanation contemplates only of a stay order in which the proceedings preceding the award for the payment of compensation are stayed. What the Explanation excludes, according to the Kerala High Court, is the "period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court". "action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration" should be the action or proceeding under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Act or under Section 17 (1) of the Act. The Apex Court over-ruled the said decision of the Kerala High Court and held that the Explanation would be applicable also in cases where the stay order delays the making of the Award or taking possession of the land acquired. The Paragraphs upon which the petitioner's counsel relied are Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said decision. Paragraph 8 of the said decision is quoted below: "the said Explanation is in the widest possible terms and, in our opinion, there is no warrant for limiting the action of proceedings referred to in the Explanation to actions or proceedings preceding the making of the award under Section 11 of the said Act. In the first place, as held by the learned Single Judge himself where the case is covered by Section 17, the possession can be taken before an award is made and we see no reason why the aforesaid expression in the Explanation should be given a different meaning depending upon whether the case is covered by Section 17 or otherwise. On the other hand, it appears to us that the Explanation is intended to confer a benefit on a landholder whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section 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 landholder. In order to get the benefit of the said provision what is required, is that the landholder who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from a Court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act so that the Explanation covers only the cases of those landholders 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. In our opinion, the Gujarat High Court was right in taking a similar view in the impugned judgment. "