Holding

The State Government may acquire land under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act for improvement or any other purpose without a prior scheme, and the notice specifying development plans satisfies the public‑purpose requirement; the stay excludes the limitation period, so the acquisition remains valid.

Summary

The Gandhi Grab Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., together with Bhawani Singh, purchased 3,49,000 sq. yards of land in Jaipur and submitted a development plan to the Urban Improvement Trust, which was objected to and referred to the State Government. The State Government, after hearing objections, issued a notice under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 acquiring the land for "development plans and construction of residential, commercial and administrative buildings". The petitioners challenged the acquisition, arguing that a scheme under the Trust was a prerequisite for acquisition and that the public purpose in the notice was vague, and also contended that the award should have been made within two years under the 1987 amendment and Section 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court held that the State could acquire land under Section 52(1) without a prior scheme, that the notice sufficiently specified the public purpose, and that the period of limitation is excluded while the proceedings are stayed, rendering the amendment argument moot. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Issues considered

The scope of Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959: whether a scheme framed by the Trust is a condition precedent for land acquisition.
Whether the notice issued by the State sufficiently specifies a public purpose under the Act.
Whether the acquisition proceedings lapse due to non‑issuance of an award within the two‑year period prescribed by Section 60‑A of the 1987 amendment and Section 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The effect of a court‑ordered stay on the computation of the limitation period for award.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11-A
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959s. 29, s. 2(i)(vi), s. 52(1), s. 52(2), s. 60-A, s. 72
Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987s. 60-A

Subjects

land acquisitionpublic purposeRajasthan Urban Improvement ActSection 52schemenotice requirementlimitation periodcompensationurban development

Judgment

A GANDHI GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

MARCH 30, 1993
B
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASUWAL, JJ.J

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959: Sub-section (1) of Sttction
5~egree of detail in specifying purpose(s) for which land is to be acquired:
When sufficient-whether size of parcel of land a detennmative factor.
c
Period of limitation : Computing of-77ie period for which proceedings
stayed or injuction issued by courl excluded.

Sub-sections (1) and (2) or Section 72 of the Rajasthan Urban
D Improvement Act, 1959 (the Act) lay down the restrictions on improve-
ment in urban areas and Section 2(i)(vi) defines the term 'Improvement'.
No person or Government department can undertake any 'improvement'
unless it is in accordance with either the 'master plan• in operation or with
a 'scheme' made by a Trust and sanctioned and notified under section 38
or the Act or, if neither a .master plan nor a scheme is in force, with the
E 'general approval' of the Tmsl after obtaining the permission of the Trust
under Section 73 of the Act.

If it appears to the government that the said land is required for the
purpose of improvement or for any other purpose under this Act, then the
F State Government may acquire such land by publishing in the ·omcial
Gazette a notice, under Section 52(1) of the Act, specifying the particular
purposes for which such land is required and stating that the government
has decided to acquire that land under section 52(1) of the Act. Before
such publication the State Government is to serve, in the prescribed
manner, notice on the owner(s) of the land and on any other person who,
G in the opinion of the government, may be interested therein, and it shall
also be published in the manner prescribed. The appointed officer, on
receipt of objections from all interested persons, must afford to them an
opportunity to be heard; and ·after making such enquiry as is considered
necessary by him, he is to submit the case, alongwith the record of
H proceedings and his report, to the government for a decision.
7AA
...
~ SAHKARI SAMITI v. STATE OF RAIASTIIAN 789

Gandhi Grab Nirman Sahkari Samiti (the Samiti) purchased from A
~bawani Singh 3,49,000 sq. yards of land in villages Bhojpura, Bhawani
Sba11kerpura and Hathirohi situated in Jaipur, for a sum of
Rs.1,02,00,000 by way of three registered deeds of conveyance. The Samiti
submitted on June 24, 1972 its development plan for 500 residential plots
in that land to the Urban Improvement Trust (the Trust) for sanction.
The Trust raised some objections and referred the matter to the State
B
Government which, in trun, raised further objections. On March 24, 1973

- the State Government issued notice under section 52(2) of the Act to the
Samiti and other interested persons; on March 26, 1973 a notice was also
issued to Bhawani Singh. After receiving objections in reply to these
notices, the appointed officer, namely Officer-on-Special Duty, Town Plan· c
ning Department, Government of Rajasthan, heard the parties and sub·
milted his report dated April 2, 1974 to the State Government. The State
Government, rejecting the objections, issued two notifications both dated
July 11, 1974 under section 52(1) of the Act. These were published in the
Rajasthan Gazette dated September 27, 1974.
D
By way or Writ Petitions before the High Court, these appellants
challenged the above acquisition. A learned Single Judge on October 15,
1982 allowed the petitions and quashed the acquisition proceedings. Upon
appeal by the State a Division Bench on February 21, 1986 set aside the
Judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence the present appeals to this E
Court.

Rejecting the appellants' contentions and upholding the judgment
and order of the High Court, this Court,

HELD: The State Government can acquire land at the instance of F
"'- the Trust, a Government department or any prescribed authority under
the Act where on a representation from the Trust "or otherwise' it appears
to the State Government that any land is required for the purpose of
'inlprovement' or "any other purpose under this Act", i.e. either for the
execution of the scheme framed by the trust or for any other 'public
G
purpose" under the Act. (796 E-F]
''('
The impugned notic~ under section 52(1) of the Act specifically
states that the land is nee?~d for the 'purposes of development plans and
construction of residenti81, commercial and administrative buildings"
The e:.pression "appears" in section 52 (l) of the Act shows that it is not H
790 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.
..
A neeessary for the Government to fram.e detailed scheme before exercising
its powers under Section 52(1); and the total area of land under the
notification being veey large - more than 387 BighaS, the degree or details
. as to the particular purposes of acquisition specified in the notification
was. sutnclenL The High Court after examining the 'original notings in the
B, government files made by the Secretary to the Town Planning Department;
, the Minister for Town Planning Department, the Minister for Town Plan··
ning and the Chief Minister, 'was also satisfied that the State Government
took tlae decision to acquire land by fully applying its mind. (797-B) .
-, ..
·. It is 'not Co~ this Court to go inio the comparative utility or two or
C ~~,;., public purposes... •, .• · · . .. .
• ·~ !

. · AfTar;;Qf, & Ors. v; Lr. Governor of Delhi&. On, (197511 SCR so2, .
reUed up~ii. · · ~ . : '.. " :·. . :· ' , . . , ·. · · ·

Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Molitt.' Shafi& O~.: (1992) 2 SCC.
D ;.168, distinliuished. · · · " .. · .,.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.1504-
07/1993 ..
: j ' . •, - . .. ~ ; ,--, . ~

• From the Judg1nent and Order daied 21.2.1986 Of the ·Rajasthan
E , High Court In 1?.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 318-32.l of 1982.. ' .' '·

Shanti Bhushan, R.K. Jain, P. 'chidambaram, M.L Lahoty, Shambhu
Pd. Singh, Ms. Shipra 'Khazanchi, V.B.·Joshi, Sunii'Gupia, Ms.. Deepa .
. DiXit, KJ. John, lndirabir Singh, K.C. Gehani and Prem Sunder Jha for·
the Appellants. · · . . ., ,
F ..
·.·.Aron Jaitley, Kapil Sibal, Aruneshwar Gupta; Pushpendra, Sc Bhat,·· . f--
. K. Swami alld Ranbir Sirigh Mehta for the Respondents. · · · · · '
:• ., ' - " . ._:
The Judgment of the Court wa5 delivered by · · "
G · KULDIP SINGH, J. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions .. ·
These appeals han ~ from land. acquisition proceedings ·initiated by
· the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Urban. improvement Act, 1959
(the Act). The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the appellants- .
land ownetS by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
H of India before the Rajasthan High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed.
'\
'
~
J -.
'r
'
SARKAR! SAMITI v. STATE OF RAJASTIIAN [SINGH, J.] 791
·-~
the writ petitions on uctober 15, 1982 and quashed the proceedings. The A
appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan were, however, allowed by the
Division Bench of the High Court on February 21, 1986 and the judgment
of the learned Single Judge was set aside. These appeals, by the land-
owners, an(against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
)'
The ian~ is popularly known as Rambagh area and Princes House B
or Raj Mahal area. According to the appellants the lands were private
properties of Maharaja of Jaipur. Gandhi Grab Nirman Sahkari Samiti
(Samiti), the appellant, acquired the vacant parcels of the land situated in
Rambagh Palace and in the compound of Raj Mahal comprising 3,49,000
sq. yards for a sum of Rs.1,02,00,000 by way of three deeds of conveyance
executed on March 29, 1972 and registered on April 3, 1972.
c
~
After the purchase of the land, the Samiti prepared a development
plan of the land according to which 500 residential plots of different sizes
were to be developed on the land. The Samiti on June 24, 1972 submitted
the development plan to the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (the Trust) D
for sanction. The Trust raised objections and the matter was referred to
the State Government. The State Government further raised objections and
as such the matter remained under correspondence for quite.,,,..some time.

..(_ On March 24, 1973 the State Government issued 1 ~9iii;, under Sec-
tion 52(2) of the Act wherein the owners of the land an' !:bther interested
E
persons were called upon to show cause as to why the land be not acquired.
A separate notice dated March 26, 1973 was sent to the appellant -
Bhawani Singh. Objections were filed by the Samiti as well as by Bhawani
Singh. The Officcr-on·Special Duty, Town Planning Department, Govern-
ment of Rajasthan heard the objections and submitted .his report dated F
April 2, 1974 for the consideration of the State Government. The State
Government rejected the objections and issued two notifications dated July
11, 1974 under Section 52(1) of the Act which were published in the
Rajasthan Gazette dated September 27, 1974. It was at that stage that the
appellants challenged the acquisition by way of writ petitions before the
G
High Court.
y
I
We may briefly notice the scheme of the Act. Section 2(l)(vi) defines
the expression "imptoyement" as under:

"'Improvement' \\ith its grammatical variations means the H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R.

A carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other
operations in, on, over or under land or the making of any
material change in any building or land or making
provision for any amenity in, on, over or under any build-
ing or land and includes re-improvement;"

B Chapter II deals with the preparation of master plan. The State Govern-
ment finally approves the master plan which comes into operation from the
date of its publication in the prescribed manner. Chapte1rs III and IV of
the Act deal with constitution of trusts ·and proceedings oli the trusts/com-
mittees. Chapter V deals with the framing of schemes by the trust. We may
c notice Section 29 therein which is as under:

"29. Schemes: matters lo be provided therein - (1) The
Trust shall, on the order of the State Government or on
its own initiative or on a representation made by the
Municipal Board and subject to availability of financial
D resour9es, frame schemes for the improvemem of the
urban area for which the Trust is constituted."

Sections 30 to 41A of Chapter V deal with the procedure for framing and
sanction of the schemes. Chapter VI defines powers and duties of the Trust
E where a scheme has been sanctioned. Chapter VII provides for acquisition ,).__
and disposal of land. Section 52 therein (as it was at the relevant time) is
reproduced hereunder:

"Sec. 52-Compulsory acquisition of land:-

F (1) where on a representation from the Trust or 011herwise
it appears to the State Government that any land is re-
quired for the purpose of improvement or for a11y other
purpose under this Act, the State Government may ac-
quire such land by publishing in the official Gazette a
notice specifying the particular purposes for which such
G land is required and stating that the State Government
had decided to acquire the land in pnrsuance of this
• I
section.

(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1) the
H State Government shall by another notice call upon the
·r

SARKAR! SAMIT! v. STATE OF RAJ:ASTHAN [SINGH, J.] 793

owner of the land and any other person who in the opinion A
of the State Government may be specified in the notice,
why the land should not be acquired.

'Such notice shall be individually served upon the
)'· owner of the land and any other person, who in the
opinion of the State Government may be interested there- .B
in. It shall also be published in the Official Gazette at least
30 days in advance and shall be posted on some con-

- spicuous place in the locality, where the land to be ac-
quired is situate. Such publication and pasting of notice
shall be deemed as sufficient and proper service of notice
upon the owner of the land and upon all other persons
c
who niay be interested therein'.

(3) Within the time specified in the notice, the owner of
the land or any other person interested therein may show
cause and make objections, why the land should not be D
acquired. Every such objections to the notice given under
sub-section {2) shall be made in writing to the Officer-on-
Special Duty or any other officer appointed by the State
Government for the purpose. Such officer shall give the
objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person
E
or by pleader and after hearing all such objections and
after making such enquiry, as he deems necessary, submit

- the case for decision of the State Government together
with the record of the proceedings held by him and a
report, containing his recommendations on the objections.
Thereafter, the State Government may pass such orders F
.......... as it deems fit. The decision of the State Government
thereon shall be final.

(4) When a notice under sub-section (!) is published in
the Official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date
G
of such publication, vest absolutely in the State Govern-

r ment free from all encumbrances.

(5) Where any land is vested in the State Government
under sub-section (4), the Stale Government may, by
notice in writing, order any person who may be in posses- H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.

A sion of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof
to the State Government or any persori duly authorised
by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the 1
notice.

(6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order
B made under sub-section ( 5), the State Government may
take possession of the land and may for that purpose use
such force as may be necessary.

(7) After the land has been acquired and its possession
taken, lbe State Government shall, on payment of the
c amount of compensation as determined under Section 53,
the amount of interest thereon and o~. all other charges
incurred by the State Government in r.iis connection;
transfer, it to the Trust or to any other prescribed autho-
rity or department for the purpose for which it is acquired.
D
(8) Any notice issued or published by the State Govern-
ment under this section may also be issued or published
for and on behalf of it by any officer subordinate to it, so
authorised."

E Chapters VIII to XII deal with finance, general provisions as to
improvement, rules and regulations, procedure an4 penalties and sup-
plemental provisions. Section 72 in Chapter IX which is relevant is
reproduced hereunder:

"72: R~striction on improvement in urban areas. - (1) In
F an urb~ area, no improvement shall be undertaken or
carried out by any person or department of the Govern-
inent unless -

(i) it is in accordance with the master plan where it is in
G operation; or

(ii) it is in accordance \vith the scheme sanctioned and
notified under section 38; or

(iii) where neither any master plan nor any scheme is in
H force, it is according to the general approval of the Trust,
,..,
SAHKARI SAMITI v. STATE OF RNASTIIAN [SINGH, J.] 795

and unless permission for undertaking or carrying out A
such improvement has been obtained in writing under the
provisions of section 73.

,,_ (2) No person or department of Government shall use
or permit to be used ~ny land or building in any .urban
area otherwise than in conformity with the master plan B
where it is in operation or with the scheme sanctioned and
notified under section 38 or with the general approval of
-=- the Trust, and unless the permission of the Trust for such
use has been obtained under section 73:

Provided that subject to the provisions of section 73B,
c
it shall be lawful for any person or department to continue
to use, upon such terms and conditions, as may be
prescribed by regulations made in this behalf, any land or
building for the purpose and to the extent for and to
which, it is being used upon the date on which such plan D
or scheme comes into force or as the case may be, the
area is declared as an urban area under this Act."

Improvement under the Act means, inter a/ia, the carrying out the
J, "
building, engineering, mining or. other operation~ i!J, on, over or under the
E
land. The trust under Section 29 of the Act may frame schemes for the
improvement of the urban area on its own initiative or on a representation

-· made by the Municipal Board. Section 29 further makes it obligator on the
trust to frame a scheme if so ordered by the State Government. Thus the
State Government can take a decision at its own level to undertake an
improvement and thereafter direct the trust to frame a scheme in that F
~. respect under the Act. Section 72 of the Act further indicates that apart
from the trust any other department of the Government can undertake an
improvement in accordance with the Master Plan. Section 52, which deals
with compulsory acquisition of land, provides that the State Government
may acquire land on a representation from the trust, or otherwise, which
G
obviously means that the land under Section 52 of the Act can also be
acquired when there is no representation from the trust and as such no
1 scheme under Chapter V in exi.stence.

Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
has contended that the framing of a scheme by the trust under Chapter V H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.

of the Act is the sine quo non for invoking the provisions of Section 52 of
the Act. According to him the State Government has no authority to
acquire land under Section 52 of the Act unless the same is required for 1
the execution of a scheme framed and sanctioned under Chapter V of the
Act. The crux of the argument is that the improvement in the urban area
can only be carried out by executing the schemes framed under the Act
B
and in no other way. We do not agree with Mr. Shanti Bhushan. Under
the Scheme of the Act the improvement of the urban area can be under-
taken by the trust and also by any of the departments of the Governme.nt.
The framing of the scheme becomes mandatory only when the work is
undertaken by the trust. The Stale Government, in any of its departments,
c may decide to tlevelop the urban area under the Act and in that case it
would not be necessary for the Government to have a scheme framed under
Chapter V of the Act. The power of the State Government lo acquire land
under the Act has been designed to meet the scheme of the Act. U ndcr
Section 52 of the Act the land can be acquired by the State Go,·ernment
D at the instance of the trust, or a department of the Government or any
prescribed authority. The plain language of Section 52(1) of the Act
negates the contention raised by Mr. Shanti Bhushan. Where on a repre-
sentation from the Trust or otherwise it appears to the State Government
that any land is required for the purpose of improvement or for any other
purpose under the Act it can acquire such land by issuing a notification
E under Section 52(1) of the Act. It is, thus, clear that the State Government
has the power' to acquire land either for the execution of the schemes
framed by the trust under Chapter V of the Act or for any other public
purpose under the Act. No fault can be found with the procedure followed
by the State Government in this case. The notification issued by the State
F Government under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act specifically
states that the land was being acquired for the construction of residential,
commercial arid administrative buildings. The Government - having taken
a policy decision to acquire land for the public purpose - was justified in
issuing the notification under Section 52(1) of the Act in respect of the
land in dispute. We, therefore, sec no force.in the contention of Mr. Shanti
G Bhushan and reject the same.
I

Mr. Shanti Bhushan relied upon the judgment of this Court in Roiltas
lndustn"es Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal & Anr., [1969] 3 SCR 108 and contended
that there was no material whatsoever before the State Government to form
H requi>itc opinion under Section 52(1) of the Act that the land was required
~..,.,

--1. SAHKARI SAMITI "· STATE OF RAJASTIIAN [SINGH, J.] 797

for the purpose of improvement or for any other purpose under the Act. A
According to him no scheme was prepared by the State Government and
it was not disclosed at any stage of the proceedings that the land was being
acquired for undertaking improvenithis under the Act. We see no force in
)-· the contention of the learned counsel. The notice under Section 52(1) of
the Act specifically declares that the land is needed "for the purposes of
development plans and construction of residential, commercial and ad-
B
ministrative buildings". The Division Bench of the High Court examined

- the original record and observed as ·under:
'
"The learned Advocate General also produced the
relevant record containing the note of the Secretary, Town c
Planning Department signed by the Minister, Town Plan-
~ ning and the Chief Minister. It is only after such a decision
of the State Government that the notices under Section
52(1) have been published in the Rajasthan Gazette."

The High Court was, thus, satisfied that the State Government took the D
decision to acquire that land by fully applying its mind. In any case the
expression "where it appears to the State Government" in Section 52(1) of the
Act shows that it is not necessary for the State Government to frame a
detailed scheme or development plan before exercising powers under the
.~
said provision. It is sufficient if a decision in that respect is taken and the E
detailed scheme is left to be worked-out at the stage of execution of the plan.

-
We, therefore, see no force in the contention of the learned counsel.

It is then argued that the award having not been made within two years
from August 1, 1987, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by operation of
law. The arugment is based on Section 60-A of the Act as inserted by the F
.·~. Rajasthan urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987 (1987 Amendment).
We may notice the relevant provisions of the 1987 Amendment:

"1. Short title and commencement. - (1) This Act may be
called the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment)
G
Act, 1987.

(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st
August, 1987.

2. Amendment of section 52, Rajasthan Act 35 of 1959 - H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R.

A in section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act,
1959 (Rajasthan Act 35 of 1959), hereinafter referred to
as the principal Act, -

(a) in sub-section (1), for the words 'by publishing in
.. •· - ' '' ~· ~·.. ' . ' . ~·· .
the Official Gazette a notice' specifying the particular
B purpose for which such land is required and stating that
the State Government has decided to acquire the land in
pursuance of this section', the words, "under and in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894)' shall be substituted; -
c (b) .........................

(c) .... :.................. ..

(d) .........................
D
3...........................

4. Insertion of new section 60A in Rajasthan Act 35 of
1959. - After the existing section 60, the following new
section shall be inserted in Chapter VII of the principal
E Act, namely:-

'60-A. Transitory provisions for pending matters relating
to acquisition of land - (1) .............................
.•
(2) .. ,................................................................................................
F
(3) Where in a matter pending on the date of com-
mencement, a notice under sub-section (2) of section 52
or a notice under sub-section (1) thereof bas been served
or, as the case may be, published, such notice shall be
deemed to be the notification or declaration published or
G made under sub-section (1) of section 4 or, as the case
may be, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act and the declaration or award in such a
matter shall be made within a period of one year or, as
the case may be, two years from the date of commence-
H merit.
I
-)'"!

SAHKARI SAMITI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (SINGH, J.] 799
-J.._
(4) .................................... A
(5) ...................................

(6) ..................................
•,.:

The precis~ argument is that in ter~ of Section 60-A(3) of the Act B
it is mandatory to make an award within a period of two years from August
1, 1987, the date of commencement of the 1987 amendment. Admittedly
the award has not as yet been made and as such, according to· the learned
counsel, the acquisition proceedings have beeome null and void. We see
no force in the contention of the learned counsel. The 1987 amendment
came into force during the pendency of these appeals. The High Court c
while allowing the appeal of the State of Rajasthan observed as under :

"On behalf of the petitioner it is prayed that the
petitioners may be allowed four weeks time for obtaining
interim stay order from the Supreme Court and till then
D
the operation of the judgment may be stayed. On this
prayer Mr. N.L. Jain, Advocate General undertakes for
four weeks that the judgment will not be executed and the
petitioner also agrees that they will also maintain the
.J... status-.quo for four weks."
E
This Court on March 20, 1986 in SLP(C) Nos. 3775-76/86 passed the
following order :

-· "Meanwhile the undertaking given by the State
recorded in the order of the High Court will continue. to
operate." F

In SLP(C) Nos. 3740/86 and 5366/86 this court on April 29, 1986 directed
status quo as to possession. It is thus obvious that the proceedings in
pursuance to the impugned judgment of the High Court remained stayed
throughout under the interim orders of this Court. Section 52 of the Act
G
as amended by the 1987 Amendment specifically provides that the acquisi-
-.,,. tion under the Act has to be made in accordance with the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act). Section 11-A of the 1894 Act
as amended in 1984 is as under :

"11-A. Period within which an award shall be made - The H
800 SUPREME CO ORT REPORTS (1993] 2 S.C.R.

A Collector shall make an award under Section 11 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 proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall
lapse:

B Provided that in a case where the said declaration has
been published before the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be
made within a period of two years from such commence-
ment.
c Explanation - In computing the period of two years
referred to in this section, 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 shall be
excluded. 11
D
Explanation to Section 11-A quoted above is a complete answer to the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Even otherwise
it is well established principle of judicial procedure that where any
proceedings are stayed by an order of a court or by an injunction issued
E by any court, that period should be excluded in computing any period of
limitation laid down by law. This principal is normally followed unless the
context of the statute provides otherwise.

Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for one of the appellants
has contended that the public purpose has not been specifically mentioned
F in the notices issued by the State Government uder sub-section (1) of
Section 52 of the Act. He relies on the following observations of this Court
in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi and Ors., (1992) 2 SCC
168:

"Apart from the defect in the impugned notification,
G as noticed above, we find that even the 'public purpose',
which has been mentioned in the schedule to the notifica-
tion as 'residential' is hopelessly vague and conveys no
idea about the purpose of acquisition rendering the
notification as invalid in law. There is no indication as to
H what type of residential accommodation was proposed or
''?'·

SAf!KARI SAMJTI v. STATE OF RAJAS1l!AN (SINGH, J.] 801
~
for whom or any other details. The State cannot acquire A
the land of a citizen for building some residence for
another, unless the same is in 'public interest' or for the
benefit of the 'public' or an identifiable section thereof.
In the absence of the details about the alleged 'public
purpose' for which the land was sought to be acquired, no
one could comprehend as to why the land was being
B
acquired and therefore was prevented from taking any
further steps in the matter." ,, ;.

The public purpose mentioned in the notification in Mohd. Shaft's
case as "residential" was hopelessly vague as observed by this Court. But c
the notification in the present case specifically provides that the land was
being acquired for the purpose of "'development plan and construction of
residentia~ commercial and administrative buildings". Apart from that in
Mohd. Shaft's case the total land acquired was 2.29 hectares whereas in the
present case much larger area is being acquired. The Division Bench of
the High Court examined this question in the light of the observations of
D
this Court in Aflatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR
802 and rejected the argument on the following reasoning:
I

l .-1., "It is true that these are all cases under the Land
Acquisition Act and public purpose is required to be E
specified in the notification, hut a contention has been
advanced that the public purpose should be specified with
particularity and the specification should not be vague.
Such a contention was repelled. Jn Section 52(1), no doubt
the requirement is that the notice should specify the F
A, particular purpose but having regard to the area of the
land sought to be acquired, it was not possible to specify
with precision, what land is required for which particular
purpose. The total land acquired from village Bhojpura
and Bhawani Shankerpura i.e. Rambagh area is 0322
G

~ y
Bighas 8 Biswas and the total area acquired from village
Hathirohi, the residency area is 65 Bighas 16 Biswas. In
view of the acquisiton of the large areas, the notices
fulfilled the requisite condition of specification of a par-
ticular purpose and in our opinion, it was sufficient to
slate in the notices that the lands are required for adw H
802 SUPREME COURT·REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.

A ministrative, commercial and residential buildings.'

We see no infirmity in the above quoted reasoning of the High Court.

Mr, Jain then contended that the land subject-matter of acquisition
in :ludes a polo ground which is used for one of the major sports :peculiar --f
B to Rajasthan. According to run; the polo ground is serving a public purpose
which is much more useful and important than the one for which the land
is being acquired. We cannot go into the comparative utility of the public
purposes. Once we are satisfied that the acquisition is for a public purpose,
no fault can be found with the proceedings on the ground that the land is
already being used for some beneficial purpose.
c
The Division Bench of the High Court has, after discussing the
material on the record in detai~ found as a fact that ample opportunity of
hearing was' given to Bhawani Singh by the Officer-on-Special Duty who
heard the objections. The High Court further found that the objections
D filed by the Samiti were fully considered by the said officer. We find no
infirmity in the findings of the High Court and agree with the same.

The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. We, however, leave the parties
to bear their own costs.

G.S.B. ..
'- -~··.: Appeals-Ois,lllissed.