Holding

The High Court was correct; no stay of any proceeding existed, so the main provision of Section 11A applies and the acquisition proceedings lapsed.

Summary

Lok Seva Shikshan Mandal sought acquisition of two parcels of land for a school and a garden. The government proceeded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the first respondent challenged the acquisition of the garden parcel (Survey No. 187/3A) by filing a writ petition. The High Court held that the award was not made within the two‑year period prescribed by Section 11A of the Act, and therefore the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The appellant argued that a stay of proceedings was in effect, invoking the Explanation to Section 11A to extend the limitation period. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the High Court's orders and found that no actual stay of any proceeding was granted, only a rule nisi and an interim direction. Consequently, the Explanation to Section 11A did not apply and the High Court’s decision was affirmed. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in holding that the award under Section 11A was not made within two years, thereby causing the acquisition proceedings to lapse.
Whether the Explanation to Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies when only a rule nisi and interim relief, but no substantive stay, were issued.
Whether the period of stay, if any, should be excluded from the two‑year limitation period for making an award.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 11A, s. 12, s. 5A, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 11Astay of proceedingsaward lapsepublic purposeinterim reliefexplanation to statutelimitation period

Judgment

LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL A
v.
A.R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST AND ORS.

APRIL 9, 2007

[C.K. THAKKER AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.] B

·~
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 1 IA-Explanation t'a-Stay of
proceedings-Nature of stay order-Writ petition challenging acquisition
proceedings admitted by issuing rule nisi and rule also issued on stay- C
Subsequently, on matter coming up for hearing on rule on stay, Court ordered
that if respondent in petition proceeded with construction of building, it will
be subject to decision of petition-Held: Court had not granted stay against
any proceeding-Merely Rule was issued on prayer of stay made in petition-
Case was covered by main part of Section 1I A and not explanation thereto--
As award by Collector was not made within two years from date ofpublication D
of final notification under Section 6, proceedings lapsed

Appellant approached the Government requesting for acquisition of land
for school as also for garden. Government took necessary proceedings in
accordance with law for the acquisition ofland of two Survey Nos viz. Survey
No. 186/4A ad measuring 59 ares of land for school and Survey No.187 /3A E
admeasuring 30 ares of land for garden. With regard to land earmarked for
garden for the school, the first respondent petitioned the High Court
contending that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer had not been passed
in accordance with the provisions of Section llA of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and the proceedings had lapsed. The said contention was upheld by the F
High Court and it was ruled that after the final notification under Section 6
of the Act, award ought to have been made within period of two years as
required by Section llA, which was not done. Aggrieved by this, the appellant
filed the present appeal.

Appellant contended that (i) the acquisition was challenged by the first G
respondent by instituting a Writ Petition which was entertained by the High
-Court, and in view of pendency of proceedings, r10 award could be passed by
the Land Acquisition Officer; (ii) as first respondent had questioned the
- legality of the proceedings, they cannot take undue advantage of their own

1007 H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A delay thereby; (iii) as interim relief was granted by High Court, the case was -:t'
covered by Explanation to Section HA and not by the main provision of Section
l lA; (iv) even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that no actual stay
was granted by the High Court when the petition was admitted, interim relief
was granted when matter came up for hearing on rule for stay; (v) even if
stay was limited to maintenance of status quo or against dispossession of the
B owner, extension of period of limitation would apply; (vi) the Registry of High
Court in pursuance of the writ issued by High Court communicated to them
an interim order; (viii) the Land Acquisition Officer was of the view that the
acquisition proceedings could not continue due to stay granted by the Court
and he proceede<J to dispatch the relevant files to the Government Advocate of
C the High Court; (viii) when the appellant sought from the Land Acquisition
Officer information on the file movement of the acquisition proceedings in
the High Court, he had replied that the proceedings were stayed.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

D HELD 1. The High Court was right and wholly justified in holding that
there was no stay of any proceeding and hence, Explanation to Section HA
had no application. If it is so, it cannot be held that the High Court had ~-
committed an error of law or misconstrued Section l lA by holding that since
award was not made within a period of two years from the date of publication
of final notification under Section 6 of the Act, the proceedings lapsed.
E [Para 32] (1022-C-DJ

Yusujbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, (1991] 4 SCC
531, Government ofT.N. & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai, (1995] Supp 2 SCC 423, M
Ramalinga Thevar v. State ofT.N. & Ors., [2000) 4 SCC 322 and Bailamma
F (Smt.)@ Doddabailamma (dead) & Ors. v. Poornaprajna House Building
Coop. Society, (2006) 2 SCC 416, relied on. 1
/.

Kam/a Pandey v. Collector, Agra & Ors., (1989) AWC 686, disapproved

2.1. It is necessary to consider the nature of order passed by the High
G Court when the acquisition proceedings were challenged by the first
respondent. Now from the record, it is clear that the first respondent filed
Writ Petition No. 810of1986 in the High Court on April 2, 1986. That petition
was admitted on April 30, 1986 by issuing rule nisi. Rule was also issued on
stay. The Court had not granted stay against "any proceeding". Merely Rule ,~
was issued on the prayer of stay made by the petitioner in the petition.
H [Para 22] (1019-G; 1020-A)
· LOK SEW A SHIKSHAN MANDAL v. A. R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST 1009

2.2. The matter then came up before the Court on July 31, 1986 for A
hearing on Rule on stay and following order was passed "The Respondent
No. 3 if proceeds with the construction of building that will be subject to the
decision of this petition." [Para 24) [1020-C-D)

2.3. The High Court was right in observing that even if Order dated
April 30, 1986, issuing Rule on stay would mean that the Court had granted B
stay of proceedings, (though no stay was granted on that date), the Rule on
stay was disposed of on July 31, 1986 clarifying that any construction would
be subject to the decision of the petition. Thereafter there was no question of
any stay in the matter and as such the case was squarely covered by main
part of Section HA of the Act. [Para 31) (1022-A-B) C
3. The communication of the order by the Registry to the appellant
herein. Usually known as writ issued in pursuance of an Order passed by the
Court, did not state that acquisition proceedings were stayed by the Court.
The writ was in consonance with the order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court and expressly stated that ifthe appellant will proceed with the D
. -f construction of building, it will be subject to the decision of the petition. The
above communication thus does not take the case of the appellant anywhere.
[Para 27) [1021-B)

4.1. The case file relating to the land bearing Survey No. 187/3A was
never sent by the Land Acquisition Officer and the file which was sent related E
to acquisition of land bearing Survey No. 186/4A. [Para 28) (1021-D)

4.2. The letter written by the President of the appellant-Manda! to the
Land Acquisition Officer seeking information on the file movement of the
acquisition proceedings in the High Court which was replied by the Land
-I Acquisition Officer stating therein that the proceedings which were stayed F
by the High Court pertained to the proceedings of Survey No. 186/4A.
(Para 29) [1021-E-F]

4.3. The High Court decided the petition on March 14, 2000 whereas
the letter on which reliance is placed by the appellant was written by the G
appellant-Manda! to the Land Acquisition Officer on June 27, 2000 and the
reply was sent by the Land Acquisition Officer on July 20, 2000 both after
the disposal of the writ petition in the High Court (Para 30) (1021-G)

5. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that even if stay was
limited to maintenance of status quo or against dispossession of the owner, H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A extension of period of limitation would apply. It is also immaterial and
irrelevant as to which party had obtained such stay. (Para 321 (1022-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6663. of2000.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2000 of the High Court
B of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 810 of 1986.
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Makarrand D.'Adkat, Vijay Kumar, Bhati Tyagi and
Vishwajit Singh for the~Appellant · · · '· .

V.N. Ganpule, Manish Pitale, V.N; Raghupathy, S.S. Shinde and Ravindra
C Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondents.
,.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. l. The present appeal is filed against the judgment
dated March 14, 2000, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur
D Bench) in Writ Petition No. 810of1986. By the said judgment, the High Court
held that land acquisition proceedings in respect of acquisition of land bearing
·~-
Survey No. 187/3A, admeasuring 30 ares ofMalkapur Town, District Buldhana
had lapsed.

2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to the institution of present appeal
E are that the (lppellant is a 'Society' registered on June 26, 1961 under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is also registered as 'Public Trust' under
the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 on August 17, 1962. The appellant is
running a school in Buldhana. It approached the Government requesting for
acquisition of land for school as also for garden. It appears that a letter was
F written by the Under Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Government
of Maharashtra to the appellant informing it about acquisition of land of ..
Survey Nos. 186 and 187 ofMalkapur in Buldhana District for public purpose,
viz. for running a school by the appellant. It was stated by the appellant that
the respondent authorities prepared Final Development Plan of Malkapur
Town under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning and Development Act,
G 1966 wherein 59 ares of land of Survey No. 186/4A and 30 ares of land of
Survey No. 187/3A was reserved. for the purpose of school and open spa~e
for garden for the appellant. A Resolution dated May 15, 1976 was also
passed giving sanction to the Development Plan. Necessary proceedings
were thereafter taken in accordance with law for the acquisition of land. So ·
H far as acquisition of 59 ares of land of Survey No. l 86/4A for school is
LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL v. A. R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST [C.K. THAKKER, J.)} 0} l
concerned, the question is no more under controversy. It had been finalized A
·--· and the challenge to the said acquisition failed. The High Court in the
impugned judgment has observed that in its opinion, "no fault can be found
with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in relation to 59 ares of land."
To that extent, therefore, the petition filed by the first respondent herein
(original petitioner) came to be dismissed. With regard to 30 ares of land of B
Survey No. 187/3A earmarked for garden for the school, the contention of the
first respondent original petitioner was that the award had not been passed
in accordance with the provisions of Section l lA of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the proceedings lapsed.
The said contention was upheld by the High Court and it was ruled that after
the final notification under Section 6 of the Act, award ought to have been C
made within a stipulated period of two years as required by Section I IA
which was not done and hence the proceedings lapsed. The judgment of the
High Court to the extent to which it held that the proceedings in respect of
30 ares of land of Survey No. 187/3A had lapsed that the appellant-Manda!
· is aggrieved and has challenged it by filing the present appeal.
D
3. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that proceedings had
been initiated by the authorities for acquisition of land of two Survey Nos.
(i) Survey No. l 86/4A admeasuring 59 ares of land for school; and (ii) Survey
No.187/3A adme~suring 30 ares of land for garden. It is also clear from the
decision of the High Court impugned in the present appeal that though the E
first respondent had challenged land acquisition proceedings for both Survey
Nos., the High Court negatived all contentions as to acquisition of land
admeasuring 59 ares of Survey No. 186/4A and the petition was dismissed.
It was only for 30 ares of land of Survey No. 187/3A that the Court held that
though the notification under Section 6 was published on July 2, 1986, no
award was made within two years as required by Section l lA of the Act and F
the proceedings had lapsed.

4. On July 28, 2000, the matter was placed for admission-hearing. Notice
was issued and parties were directed to maintain status quo. On November
20, 2000, leave was granted and interim relief was ordered to continue. The
matter has now been placed for final hearing. G
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Senior Advocate appearing for the aj)pellant
contended that the High Court has committed an error of law as also of
jurisdiction in holding that the proceedings had lapsed under Section l lA of H
\

1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.

A the Act. It was submitted that the Court ought to have taken into account
the fact that the acquisition was challenged by the first respondent by
instituting a Writ Petition which was entertained by the High Court. In view
of pendency of proceedings, no award could be passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer and Section 11 A of the Act had no application. It was also
urged that on the one hand, the first respondent challenged the proceedings
B and obtained interim relief and on the ·other hand, it sought to contend that
since the proceedings could not be completed as required by law, they lapsed.
Such argument, submitted the counsel, would not lie in the mouth of the
person who had questioned the legality of the proceedings. It is settled law
that a party cannot take undue advantage of its own delay. The High Court
C ought to have appreciated the said fact and dismissed the petition. According
to the appellant, when the proceedings were pending in the High Court and
the matter was sub-judice, the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in not
passing an award. Once public purpose had been established and notification
under Section 6 of the Act had been issued, it could not have been set at
naught or nullified on a technical ground that award had not been made
D within a particular period. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves
to be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the High Court and by
upholding the action of the authorities that land acquisition proceedings were
in consonance with law.

E 7. Learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, supported
the judgment of the High Court. According to him, the language of Section
I IA is explicitly clear. It is bounden duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to
make award within two years from the date of publication of declaration under
Section 6 of the Act. Since it was not done, the proceedings had lapsed. The
counsel stated that admittedly the proceedings were not stayed by the High
F Court. If it is so, Explanation to Section I IA of the Act had no application
and in computing the period of two years under. Section 11 A, the period of
pendency of Writ Petition could not be excluded. He, therefore, submitted that
the ap~eal deserves to be dismissed.

8. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in their affidavit contended that after the
G notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued, the first respondent
approached the High Court and challenged the acquisitions proceedings. In
the light of pendency of Writ Petition, the authorities did not proceed further
with the acquisition proceedings and the first respondent, who had challenged
the proceedings cannot take advantage of that situation. It was, therefore,
H submitted that the High Court was in error in allowing the petition.
LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL v. A. R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST [C.K. THAKKER, J.) 1013·

) 9. The question before this Court is as to whether the High Court was A
right in holding that award which ought to have been made under Section
I IA of the Act was not made within the stipulated period. The learned
counsel for both the sides, in this connection, drew our attention to the
relevant provisions of law as also to the decisions of this Court.

I 0. Now it cannot be gainsaid that every State has power of eminent B
domain, which is the essential attribute of sovereignty. In exercise of the said
.... power, the State can acquire private property of its subjects for a public
-i
purpose. The expression 'public purpose' is defined in Clause (t) of Section
3 of the Act. Section 4 enables the 'appropriate Government' to issue
'preliminary notification' if it appears to such Government that any land is c
needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose. Section 5A of the Act
then provides for hearing of objections against the proposed acquisition.
Section 6 empowers the 'appropriate Government' to issue 'final notification'.
Such action, however, has to be taken after considering the report, if any,
submitted by the Collector under Section 5A of the Act. It also provides
modes of publication of notification and contains a provision in sub-section D
(3) that such declaration 'shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed
r for a public purpose'. The law also provides for giving of notice to persons
interested before taking over possession of land as also for payment of
compensation. Section 11 of the Act deals with award of compensation by
the Collector. Section l lA, as inserted by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) E
Act, 1984 (Act 68of1984) prescribes the period within which an award should
be made by the Collector. The said section is material and may be quoted in
extenso:-

"l lA. Period within which an award shall be made-( I) The Collector
~
shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years F
-I 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:

Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published
before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, G
1984 (68of1984), the award shall be made within a period of two years
from such commencement.
...... 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 H
\
(

1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

·(
A shall be excluded."

11. Section 12 of the Act makes the award of the Collector final. We are
not concerned with other provisions of the Act in the present matter.

12. Bare reading of Section I IA leaves no room of doubt that the
B Collector is enjoined to make an award within a period of two years from the
date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. "If no award
is made within that period, the entire proceed.ings for the. acquisition of the ,,.
land shall lapse." Explanation to Section l lA, however, states as to how 1-

period of two years should be counted. It clarifies that in computing the -.
period of two years referred to in the section, the period during which any
c action or proceedings is stayed by an order of a court would be excluded.
Whereas it is contended by the first respondent that the case on hand is
governed by the main provision of Section 11 A, the argument of the appellant :::
is that it is governed by the Explanation to the said provision.

13. Let us now consider the relevant decisions of this Court on the
D
interpretation of the provision.

In Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendo/iya v. State of Gujarat, [1991] 4 SCC
i·
531, a question came up for consideration before this Court probably for the
first time. In that case, proceedings under the Act had been initiated for
E acquisition of land of the appellant and final notification under Section 6 of
the A.ct was issued on May 12, 1988. The land-owner challenged the
notification by filing a petition in the High Court of Gujarat. A prayer was
made for quashing the notification and acquisition proceedings. During the
pendency and final disposal of the Wri~ Petition, interim relief of operation
and implementation of the notification was also sought. The High Court,
F however, granted limited interim relief by restraining the authorities from \
;...
taking possession of the land pending the Writ Petition. The Land Acquisition
Officer then issued a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act for
the purpose of determining compensation of land. The land-owner in the
inquiry inter. alia contended that two years had lapsed after the publication
of final notification under Section 6 of the Act and, hence, no award could
G
be passed as the proceedings lapsed under Section 1 IA. The contention of .
the land~owner, however, was rejected by the Authorities. The said decision
was challenged by the land-owner in the High Court by filing another petition
contending that there was no stay of 'further proceedings' by the Court
restraining the Authorities and hence it was obligatory on the authorities to
-
H proceed further under the Act. As it was not done, the award ought to have
LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL v. A. R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST [C.K. THAKKER.1.J } 0} 5

been made within two years as required by Section I IA. As the award was A
not passed within a period stipulated by Section I IA of the Act, it was barred
by statutory limitation and the proceedings lapsed. The High Court rejected
the contention observing that "the Explanation to Section 1lA is not confined
to the staying of the making of the award pursuant to Section 6 of the
notification, but it is widely worded and covers in its sweep the entire period B
during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the
declaration under Section 6, is stayed by a competent court". The award,
therefore, could not be said to have been passed beyond the statutory period,
concluded the High Court. The aggrieved land-owner challenged the said
decision in this Court.

14. This Court was called upon to consider whether the High Court was
c
right in invoking the Explanation to Section I IA of the Act though limited
interim relief was granted qua possession only and had not stayed 'further
proceedings'. On behalf of the land-owner, reliance was placed on a decision
of the High Court of Kerala in S. Bavajan Sahib v. State ofKera/a, AIR (1988)
Ker 280 that the question of taking possession of the land arises only when D
an award is passed under the Act except the cases covered by Section 17
-f (Cases of urgency). When Section 17 of the Act was not invoked, the case
would be governed by Section 1lA of the Act and not by Explanation
thereto and if the award is not made within a period of two years from the
date of final notification under Section 6 of the Act, the proceedings would E 0
lapse. This Court, however, negatived the contention, disagreed with Kerala
view and observed; "We find ourselves unable to agree with the learned
Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment". The Court
then considered the scheme of the Act and the phrase "any action or
proceedings", to be taken in pursuance of the notification and held that even
if limited interim relief was granted, the Explanation to Section l lA would F
apply.

15. Interpreting the Explanation liberally, the Court stated;

"The said Explanation is in the widest possible terms and, in our
opinion, there is no warrant for limiting the action or proceeding G
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 H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.
·-
A Explanation should be given a different meaning depending upon
whether the case is covered by Section I 7 or otherwise. On the other
_hand, it appears to us that Section I I-A is intended to limit the benefit
conferred on a land holder whose land is acquired after the declaration
under Section 6 is made to in cases covered by ,the Explanation. The
benefit is that the award must be made within a period of two years
B of the ·declaration, failing which the acquisition proceedings would
lapse and the land would revert to the land-holder. In order to get the
benefit of the said provision what is required, is that the land-holder
who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from a court
restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration
c under Section 6 of the said Act so that the Explanation covers only
the cases of those land-holders who do not obtain any order from a
court which would delay or prevent the m'.11<ing 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."

·D I6. In Government ofT.N. & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai, [I995] Supp 2 SCC
423, in a similar situation, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in
Yusutbhai and observed that while calculating the period of limitation oftWo
years for making an award under Section I IA of the Act, the period during
which action or proceedings were stayed by an order of the High Court would
be excluded. It was held that even if there was stay as to dispossession only,
.E •. it would tantamount to stay of further proceediiigs and the entire period had
to be excluded.

I7. In M Ramalinga Thevar v. State ofT.N. & Ors., [2000] 4 SCC 322
: JT (2000) 5 SC 27, this Court held that as per Explanation to Section l lA
F of the Act, the period of exclusion from time is the period during which "any
action or proceedings" to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is
stayed. Undoubtedly, one of the actions contemplated pursuant to the
declaration under Section 6 is taking possession of the land though, such
action is a post award step in normal circumstances. Nonetheless, it is one
of the actions to be adopted as a follow-up measure pursuant to the declaration
G envisaged by Section 6 of the Act. Obser-Ving that the consequence mentioned
in Section I IA is a self-operating statutory process, the Court held that it can
operate only when the conditions specified therein conjoin together. The
c-0nsequences would step in only when there is fusion of all the conditions
stipulated therein. If there is any stay regarding any of the actions being
H taken pursuant to the declaration then the consequence of lapse would not
.,..
17
LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL v. A. R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST [C.K. THAKKER, J.) } Q

happen. A
):
This Court, therefore, concluded:-

"Thus, the position is now well settled that even when dispossession
alone is stayed by the Court the period during which such stay
operates would stand excluded from the time fixed for passing the B
award, the expiry of which would render the acquisition proceedings
lapsed."
....
18. Recently, in Bailamma (Smt.) @Doddabailamma (dead) & Ors. v.
}
Poornaprajna House Building Coop. Society, [2006] 2 SCC 416: JT (2006)
2 SC 108, it has been held that period of stay of any action or proceedings c
taken in pursuance of the declarntion would take out the matter from the main
part to Section I IA of the Act attracting the Explanation to the said section.

The Court stated;

This Court emphasized the fact that Section 1 IA was enacted with
D
a view to prevent inordinate delay being made by Land Acquisition
Officer in making the award which deprived owners of the enjoyment
-f of the property or to deal with the land whose possession has already
been taken Delay in making the award subjected the owner of the land
-i
to untold hardship. The objects and reasons for introducing Section
I IA into the Act were that "the pendency of acquisition proceedings E
for long periods often causes hardship to the affected parties and
renders unrealistic the scale of compensation offered to them" and "it
is proposed to provide for a period of two years from the date of
publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act within which
the Collector should make his award under the Act". The emphasis,
F
therefore, was on the Collector making his award within the period
~

~
prescribed. However, the legislature was also aware of the reality of
the situation and was not oblivious of the fact that in many cases
acquisition proceedings were stalled by stay orders obtained from
courts of law by interested parties. It, therefore, became imperative
that in computing the period of two years, the period during which G
an order of stay operated, which prevented the authorities from taking
any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration, must be
excluded. If such a provision was not made, an acquisition proceeding
-""'· could be easily defeated by obtaining an order of stay and prolonging
the litigation thereafter. Explanation to Section 1lA was meant to deal
H
,• 1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4. S.C:R.

A with situations of this kind. The explanation is in the widest possible
·tenns which do not limit its operation to cases where an order of stay
is obtained by a land-owner alone .. One can conceive of cases whe"re ·
apart from land-owners others may· be interested in stalling the fartd •·
acquisition proceeding. It is no doubt true that in most of the reported
decisions the party that obtained the stay order happened to be the .
B owner of the land acquired. But that will not lead us to the conclusion
that the explanation applied only to cases where stay had.been obtained- ,
by the owners ofthe land. There may be others who may be int~rested .
in obtaining an order of stay being aggrieved by the acquisition
proceeding. It may be that on account of development of that area
c some persons in the vicinity may be adversely affected, or it may be
for any other reason that persons in the locality are adversely affected
by the project for which acquisition is being made. One can imagine
many instances in which a person other than the owner . may be
interested in defeating the acquisition proceeding. Once an order of
stay is .cbtained and the Government and the Collector are prevented
from taking any further action pursuant to the declaration; they cannot
be faulted for the delay, and therefore, the period during which the
order of stay operates must be excluded. In a sense, operation of the
. order of stay provides a justification for the delay in taking further
\-
steps in the acquisition procee.ding for which the authoritits are not
E to blame.

19. Dr. Dhawan strongly relied upon a decision of the Division Bench .'

~f the High Court of Allahabad in Smt. Kam/a Pandey v. Collector, Agra &
. •Ors., (1989) AWC 686. In that case, no award was passed within a period of
two years from the date of publication of final notification under Section 6
F of the Act. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of the land owner that the
acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section l IA of the Act. The Court,
·• however, negatived the contention observing that it was a 'technical plea'
and the omission on the part of the Authorities was that the "Special Land
Acquisition Officer did not determine the compensation regarding the
G petitioner's plot" on the ground that the question whether the property
s.bould be exempted from acquisition was pending consideration before the
· State Government.
"' ;.c.,. · 'i
.,,, .. The Court then stated :-

"The only .question, the.refore, that arises for (;Oosideration . is,
whether the petitioner himself had requ~sted for .exemption of the land
LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL v. A. R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST [C.K. THAKKER. J.) 1019

)<
from acquisition or the Development Authority or the Collector on A
their own requested the Government to exempt the same from
acquisition. The nonnal course of human conduct persuades us to
think that it is the persons whose land or houses are being taken away
who would be interested in getting the land exempted from acquisition.
Ordinarily, no one likes expropriation even ifhe might get compensation
in lieu of acquisition. We would, therefore, prefer to rely on the B
version of the Agra Development Authority that it was the petitioner
and others at whose instance the matter was referred to the Government
~ for the exemption of their land. At any rate, there is nothing which
might persuade us to accept the petitioners' version in preference to
that of the Agra 1Development Authority." c
20. It was also observed that when the land owner himself contributed
to the delay in making the award by approaching the Government against
acquisition, the proceedings could not be quashed.

The Court said:- D
"The omission was not a fraud on the statute but was clearly
~ bona fide based on the consideration that there was a move afoot for
the release of the land from acquisition. Moreover, the persons who
would be hit by the quashing of the acquisition proceedings are not
before us. To quash the proceedings in this state of things would not, E
in our considered view, be appropriate. It would defeat the larger
public interest if we were to quash the proceedings on the technicality,
assuming that the omission to make an award in respect of the

- petitioners' land within time produced the effect of vitiating the entire
acquisition proceedings.

21. Apart from the fact that the above decision has no binding effect,
F

the question is no longer. res integra and had been finally settled by this
Court in Yusutbhai and reiterated from time to time. In our opinion, therefore,
the above decision is of no help to the appellant.

22. In our considered opinion, Dr. Dhawan is also not right in contending G
that as interim relief was granted, the case was covered by Explanation to
Section l lA and not by the main provision of Section l lA. It is, therefore,
,,..._ necessary to consider the nature of order passed by the High Court when the
acquisition proceedings were challenged. by the first respondent. Now from
" the record, it is clear that the first respondent filed Writ Petition No. 810 of H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A 1986 in the High Court on April 2, 1986. On April 30, 1986, the Court admitted
the petition by issuing Rule and the following order was passed:-

"Rule. To be put up with connected matter. Rule on stay. Liberty to
move .Vacation Judge."

B (Emphasis supplied)

23. It is, thus, clear that the petition was admitted by issuing rule nisi.
Rule was also issued on stay. In our opinion, however, the learned counsel
for the first respondent is right in contending that the Court had not granted
stay against "any proceeding". Merely Rule was issued on the prayer of stay
C made by the petitioner in the petition.

24. The matter then came up before the Court on July 31, 1986 for
hearing on Rule on stay and following order was passed

"The respondent No.3 if proceeds with the construction of building
D that will be subject to the decision of this petition."

25. Dr. Dhawan vehemently contended that even if it is assumed for the
sake of argument that on April 30, 1986, no actual stay was granted by the 't
Court, interim relief was granted on July 31, 1986. He also drew our attention
to the communication of the order by the Registry to the appellant herein,
E usually known as writ issued in pursuance of an Order passed by the Court.
The communication inter alia stated

"Upon reading the petition of the applicant presented to this High
Court of Judicature Bombay on the 21st day of April, 1986 praying
that to restrain the Respondent No. 2 and its institutions and its
F employees, agents, servants etc. from changing the nature of the
lands admeasuring 0.59 from Survey No. l 86/4A and 187/3A as referred
by the Award purported to be dated 27 .2.1986 in Land Acquisition
Case No. LAQ/Malkapur/4/1977-78 at Annexure-L .are concerned till
the decision of this petition and further to refrain them from making
G any construction on changes therein till the decision of this petition"

Then quoting the order of the Court, it was stated:-

"It is hereby accordingly directed that if you proceed· with the
construction of buildin,g, that will be subject to the decision of this
petition."
H
LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL v. A. R. MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST [C.K. THAKKER, J.] 1Q2}

y. 26. Dr. Dhawan submitted that it was an interim order communicated by A
the Assistant Registrar of the High Court to the appellant.

27. Upon reading the writ also, there is no doubt in our minds that the
above communication by the Registry of the High Court did not state that
acquisition proceedings were stayed by the Court. The writ, in our opinion,
was in consonance with the order passed by the Division Bench of the High B
Court and expressly stated that if the appellant will proceed with the
... construction of building, it will be subject to the decision of the petition. The
above communication thus does not take the case of the appellant anywhere.

28. It was then argued by Dr. Dhawan that the Land Acquisition Officer
was of the view that the acquisition proceedings could not continue due to
c
stay granted by the Court and he proceeded to dispatch the relevant files to
the Government Advocate of the High Court. For that, the Counsel invited
our attention to the facts stated in the judgment that though there was no
specific order from the Court, a letter was issued by an Officer of the
Government Pleader to the Land Acquisition Officer to send the record of the D
case. The Court, however, observed that the case file relating to the land
bearing Survey No. 187/3A was never sent by the Land Acquisition Officer
~
and the file which was sent related to acquisition of land bearing Survey No.
186/4A.

29. The appellant also referred to a letter dated June 27, 2000 written by E
the President of the appellant-Mandal to the Land Acquisition Officer seeking
information on the file movement of the acquisition proceedings in the High
Court which was replied by the Land Acquisition Officer vide his letter dated
July 20, 2000 stating therein that the proceedings were stayed by the High
Court in Writ Petition No. 810 of 1986. From the letter, it is clear that it
F
..
~ pertained to the proceedings of Survey No. 186/4A. But even otherwise, the
order passed by the Court was abundantly clear. No stay was granted by the
Court, and hence, it could not be said that Explanation to Section l lA got
attracted and such period would be excluded from computing the period of
two years.
G
30. It may also be stated that the High Court decided the petition on
March 14, 2000 whereas the letter on which reliance is placed by the appellant
was written by the appellant-Manda! to the Land Acquisition Officer on June
/. 27, 2000 and the reply was sent by the Land Acquisition Officer on July 20,
2000 both after the disposal of the writ petition in the High Court.
H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A 31. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was right in observing that
even if Order dated April 30, 1986, issuing Rule on stay .would mean that the
Court had granted stay of proceedings, (though no stay was granted on that
date), the Rule on stay was disposed of on July 31, 1986 clarifying that any
construction would be subject to the decision of the petition. Thereafter there
B was no question of any stay in the matter and as such the case was squarely
covered by main part of Section I IA of t~e Act.

32. It was urged that the term 'stay' was interpreted by this Court very ..i

widely and it was held that even if stay was limited to maintena11ce of status
quo or against dispossessiOn of the owner, extension of period of limitation
C would apply. There is no dispute about the said proposition of law. It is also
immaterial .and irrelevant as to which party had obtained such stay. The only
question is whether there was any stay by the High Court. In the case on
hand, to us, the High Court was right and wholly justified in holding that
there was no stay of any proceeding and hence, Explanation to Section l IA
had no application. If it is so, it cannot be held that the High Court had
D committed an error of law or misconstrued Section 11 A by holding that since
award was not made within a period of two years from the date of publication
of final notification under Section 6 of the Act, the proceedings lapsed. Since ~
the order passed by the High Court impugned in the present appeal by the
appellant is in consonance with law, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

E 33. For the foregoing reasons, we see no infirmity in the order of the •.
High Court. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed,
however, without any order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.

,' ' ..
~,
'. '