Holding

The period of a stay order is excluded from the two‑year limitation under Section 11A, and an award signed by the Collector and approved by the Government is a valid award without the need for a second signature or further notice.

Summary

The case concerned a land acquisition proceeding where the Collector made an award on 13 March 1990 and sent it to the Government for approval. The respondents, fearing that the award would not be approved within the two‑year period prescribed by Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, obtained a stay of the declaration dated 30 June 1988, which operated until November 1992. The appellants argued that the stay period should not be excluded from the limitation calculation and that the Collector must re‑sign the award after Government approval and give notice of its pronouncement. The Supreme Court held that the explanation to Section 11A requires the period of a court‑ordered stay to be excluded from the two‑year limitation, irrespective of which party obtained the stay, and that an award signed by the Collector and approved by the Government becomes a valid award without the need for a second signature or additional notice. Consequently, the award was deemed to have been made within time and the acquisition proceedings stood. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The period of a court‑ordered stay should be excluded when computing the two‑year limitation under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the Collector must re‑sign the award after Government approval and give notice of its pronouncement for the award to be valid.
Whether the award signed by the Collector and approved by the Government constitutes a valid award within the statutory period.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 11A, s. 12, s. 18, s. 30, s. 4, s. 6, s. 8, s. 9
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 11A limitationStay orderAward approvalCollector's awardStatutory periodNotice of award

Judgment

A SMT. BAILAMMA@ DODDABAILAMMA (DEAD) AND ORS.
v.
POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
AND OTHERS

JANUARY3I,2006
B
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR. JJ.]

'
land Acquisilion Ac/, 1894-Sections 6, 11, /IA, 12(2), 18 and 30

c Award of Colleclor--Prior lo its approval by Covernmenl, declararion
under Sec/ion 6 in terms uf which award was made, slayed by Court-
Approval by Government on subsequent clarificarion of slay order-Time
limil of two years under Sec/ion 11 for making of award from date of
pub/icalion of rhe declara/ion--Held: Stay order prevenled the Gowrnmenl
D from approving !he award and !he period of opera/ion of rhal order had lo
be excluded in computing the period of rwo years-This exclusion was
irrespecrive of wherher slay was oblained by land owner or o/her persons
Furrher, parly obraining the stay was not precluded from raking its advan/age
and obtain exclusion of period for which stay nrder was operational.

E Award of Colleclor-Approval by government-Award already signed
by Co//ectc-r becomes an award as soon as ii is approved by the Governmenl
wirhou/ any alteralion- After approval, ii becomes an offer to be made lo rhe
interes/ed persons. but !hereafter under Section I I, rhe Collector is neirher
required to sign it again nor give notice to interesled persons of dale of its
F pronounceme/1/·--Facl thar ii was no/ pronounced ajier notice in presence of
inleresled parties does not invalidale ii, though rhis may have a bearing on
limilation regarding reference under Sec/ions 18 or 30-Sec/ion 12(2).

A Collector under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made an award on March
13, 1990 and after signing it sent it to the Government for its approval.
G Respondent-a House Building Co-operative Society, apprehending that the
approval may not be granted within the statutory period thereby resulting in
lapse of the award, filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the Government to
approve the award. In the said petition, on June 29,1990, an interim order
was made staying the operation of the declaration dated June 30,1988 under

H 984
BAILAM~1A rifi DODDABAILAMMA (DJ 1·. POORNAPRAJ:'\A HOl:SE BUILD CO-OP. SOCIETY 985

"\'. .• Section 6 of the Act, pursuant to which said award was made. On February 7, A
)' 1991, High Court clarified that the order of stay shall not prevent the
Government from granting approval to the award. On November 16, 1992 the
Government granted approval to the award submitted by the Collector. On
November 18, 1992 the respondents withdrew their writ petition and thereafter
the stay was vacated finally. Notices of the award to the interested persons
were given on November 20, 1992 under Section .12(2) of the Act B

¥ Appellants, aggrieved by the award, filed a writ petition for quashing
the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that Collector did not formally
'\.
sign the approved award and inform the concerned parties within the period
prescribed by Section llA of the Act viz. two years from date publication of
declaration under Section 6 of the Act However, High Court held that in terms
c
of explanation to Section I IA of the Act the period during which the stay order
operated had to be excluded, and thereby, the approval was within the period
preseribed therein. Hence, the presen,t appeal.
1

• Appellant, inter alia, contended that as the order of the stay was obtained
by respondent themselves, they cannot take any advantage of that order.
D

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD I.I. Reading of the stay order of June 29, 1990 makes it
abundantly clear that the operation of the declaration made under Section 6 E
of the Act was itself stayed, that is to say, as if no declaration has been made
under Section 6 of the Act. Such being the position no steps required to be
taken under the Act after publication of the declaration under Section 6 could
be taken either by the Collector or by the Government. The Government was,
~
therefore, prevented from approving the award submitted to it by the Collector.
Thus, it was on account of the order of stay passed by the High Court that the F
Government was prevented from granting approval earlier than February 7,
1991, when it was clarified that the order will not prevent the Government
only from giving approval to the draft award pending consideration before it.
Once, the order of stay was so modified, the Government granted approval on
November 16, 1992. It was not disputed that ifthe period from June 6, 1990 G
to Novem her 18, 1992 is excluded from the time in making the award, the
award must be held to have been made within two years from the day of last
publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 1983-C-E)

1.2. The emphasis in introducing Section 11 A was on the Collector
making the award within the period prescribed. However, the legislature was H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1006[ I S.C.R.

A 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 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
B provision was not made, an acquisition proceeding could be easily defeated by
obtaining an order of stay and prolonging the litigation thereafter. [995-D-EI

Govern111ent of TN and Anr. v. Vasantha Bai, (19951Supp2 SCC 423,
relied on.

c 2.1. Explanation to Section ltA of the Act was meant to deal with
situations of this kind. It is in the widest possible terms 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 where apart from land-owners others may be
interested in stalling the land acquisition proceeding. [995-FI
D
Yu.rnjbhai Noor111omh111ed Nendolitya v. State ofGujarat and Anr., [ 19911
4 sec 531, relied on

2.2. The period during which the stay granted by the High Court operated
can be excluded irrespective of fact that it had been obtained by respondent,
E and it cannot be said that they cannot take its advantage. The exclusion of the
period during which the order of stay operated is not dependent upon the party
obtaining such an order. An order passed by the Court must be obeyed by all
concerned. In the instant case the respondent moved the High Court and
obtained an order of stay. 1992-F; 993-FI

F 3.1. There was really no necessity for the Collector to sign the award
again. Section 11 of the Act requires notice to be given for the purpose of
hearing objections. After the objections are heiird, the Collector has to apply
his mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances and prepare an award
where after he is required to send it to the Government for approval. There is
G nothing in Section 11 which requires him to give notice to the persons
interested of the date of pronouncement of the award, though, there is nothing
which prevents him from giving such notice. [999-F-GI

3.2. However, having regard to the provisions of Section 12(2) of the
Act, Collector must give immediate notice to such of the persons interested
H as are not present personally or by their representative when the award is
BAILAMMA@ DODDABAILAMMA (D)' POORNAPRAINA HOUSE BUILD CO-OP. SOCIETY [BP. SINGH, l] 987
made. [999-B] A
'(
~ l" 3.3. Thus viewed, there can he no doubt that after the award is approved
the same becomes an offer to be made to the persons interested, and this can
be done either by giving notice to the persons interested, of the date on which
he may orally pronounce the award, or by giving written notice of the award
to the persons interested. [999-B] B
3.4. The mere fact that the Collector did not pronounce the award after
1 the notice in the presence of the parties interested will not invalidate the award,
though it may have a bearing on the question oflimitation in the matter of
~
seeking a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act. The award which has
already been signed by the Collector becomes an award as soon as it is approved c
by the Government without any alteration. At best the appellants can contend
that it becomes an award when notice is given to the parties interested.
[999-D-E)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2013-2015 of
1999.
D
r

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.2.1998 of the Karnataka High
Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 2079, 2080-81and2090-94of1993.

WITH
E
C.A. Nos. 2016-23of1999.

A.K. Ganguly, L. Nageshwar Rao, Naveen R. Nath, Mrs. Lalit Mohini
.... Bhat, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Hetu Arora, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, V .
Laxminarayana, Ms. A. Shivram, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Mohd. Wasay Khan,
Kasi Viswanatha and B.L. Kanti for the Appellants. F
P.P. Rao, T.L.V. Iyer, R.S. Hegde, Ms. Mahalaxmi Pavani, Balaji, P.P.
Singh, N. Ganpathy, Ranjan Kumar and Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
B.P. SINGH, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the
Judgment and Order of the High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore dated
,. February 12, 1998 in Writ Appeal No.2079of1993, Writ Appeal Nos.2080-2081
of 1993 and Writ Appeal Nos.2090-94of1993. Civil Appeal Nos.2073-2077of
2000 are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated
September 21, 1999 dismissing the Writ Appeals following the judgment of the H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] I S.C.R.

A High Court in the earlier batch of Writ Appeals. The Hig/l Court by its
impugned judgment and order upheld the award made by the Collector holding
that the requirements of Section 11 and 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') were met if the award was made
and signed by the Collector and approved by the Government within a period
B of two years from the date of last publication of declaration under Section 6
of the Act. Jn the instant case the Collector signed his award after an enquiry
as contemplated by the Act on March 13, 1990 and sent the same on the same
date for the approval of the Government. The award was approved by the
Government on November 16, I 992, but after excluding the period during
which an order of stay operated against the Government from acting pursuant
C to the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, the same w~s deemed to
be approved within the period of two years from the date of last publication
of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The contention urged on behalf of
the appellants herein, that after the approval of the Government the Collector
should have declared the award was repelled, since it was found in the facts
of the case that the award had already been signed by the Collector and sent
D to the Government for approval. To appreciate the contentions urged before
us it is necessary to narrate the relevant facts of rhe case.

A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated
August I 1, 1987 was published in the Official Gazette on August 13, 1987.
E Objections received from the owners of the lands were considered by the
Collector and rejected. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act
dated June 30, 1988 was published in the Official Gazette on July I, 1988. The
last date of publication of the aforesaid declaration in accordance with Section
6 of the Act was November 5, 1988. In normal course, therefore, the award ...
should have been made before November 5, 1990. However, the Collector
F made his award on March 13, 1990 and after signing the same sent the award
to the Government for its approval.

It appears that the Respondents-Society was apprehensive that the
Government may not approve the award within the statutory period fixed by
the Act and, therefore, it filed a writ petition on June 27, I 990 for issuance
G of a Writ of Mandamus to the Government to approve the award. In the said
writ petition an interim order was made on June 29, I 990 staying the operation
of the declaration dated June 30, 1988 for a period of two weeks from the date
of the order. Subsequently, the stay was extended till further orders. On
February 7, I 99 I, the order of stay was modified only to the extent that it was
H clarified that the order of stay shall not prevent the Government from granting
BAILAMMA@ DODDABAILAMMA (D)" POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILD CO-OP. SOCIETY [BP SINGH. J] 989
approval to the award, submitted to it by the Collector. The order of stay, A
however, continued to operate subject to the clarification given, and other
steps could not be taken till the order of stay finally stood vacated on
November 18, 1992. It is only thereafter that notice of the award could be
given to the persons interested. On November 16, 1992 the Government
granted approval to the award submitted by the Collector. On November 18,
1992 the Writ Petition filed by the Respondents-Society was withdrawn, and B
thereafter the order of stay finally stood vacated.

From the facts stated above, it would appear that an order of stay
operated against the Government from taking any further steps pursuant to
the declaration dated June 30, 1988 which included grant of approval to the C
award of the Collector and its communication to the persons mterested and
other steps to be taken under the Act, till November 18, 1992. It is the
contention of the Respondents that in computing the period of two years for
making the award in accordance with Section 11 A of the Act the period
during which the stay order operated must be excluded. The High Court has
upheld this contention and held that the award was approved within the D
period prescribed by Section I IA of the Act.

The award was challenged by the appellants herein contending that
there was nothing on record to indicate that after approval was granted by
the Government the Collector signed the award. The contention was that
Section 11 read with Section I IA of the Act provided that after the award is E
approved by the Government, the Collector can make an award, meaning
thereby, that after the award submitted by the Collector is approved by the
Government, the Collector must formally sign the award as approved and
inform the parties concerned. If he fails to do so within the period prescribed
by Section 11 A of the Act the entire proceeding for the acquisition must p
lapse. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition upheld the
contention of the respondents and quashed the acquisition proceedings.
Appeals were preferred by the State of Karnataka and other interested parties
to the High Court which were initially placed for disposal before a division
bench of the High Court which referred it to a larger bench since it appeared
to the learned judges that an earlier division bench judgment of the High G
Court in Writ Petition No.4244 of 1989, which took the view that Section I I A
will be satisfied if approval is granted by the Government within the specified
period to the award made by the Collector, required re-consideration, That is
how the matter came up for hearing before a bench of three learned judges
of the High Court. H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006 J I S.C.R.

A The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 is that if a declaration
is published under Section 6 of the Act, the Collector is to take an order for
.;
acquisition of the lands notified. For this purpose, the Collector is required
to demarcate the lands proposed to be acquired, get the same measured and
a plan to be prepared as required to be done by Sections 7 and 8 of the Act.
Under Section 9 the Collector is required to get published a public notice
B stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and that
claims to compensation for all interested in such land may be made to him.
The notice must enumerate the particulars mentioned in Sub-Section (2) of
Section 9 of the Act. The said notice must also be served on the persons
interested as provided in Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 9. After notices ..
c have been issued under Section 9 of the Act, the Collector proceeds to
enquire into all the matters specified in Section 11 of the Act. Sections 11,
I IA and 12 of the Act as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act
1984 are crucial for deciding the questions involved in these appeals. They
provide as follows :

D "11. Enquiry and award by Collector-{ I) On the day so fixed, or any
other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall
proceed to enqui~e into the objections (if any) which any person
interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to
the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land
and at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4,
E sub-section (I), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming
the compensation, and shall make an award under his hand of -

(i) the true area of the land;
....
(ii) the compens·ation which in his opinion should be allowed for
F the land; and

(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the
persons known or believed to be intet"ested in the land, of
whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or
not they have respectively appeared before him;
G
[Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this
sub-s~ction without the previous approval of the appropriate
Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may •
authorize in this behalf;

H Provided further that it shall be competent for the Appropriate
BAILAMMA@ DODDABAIL·"1~1A (DI,. POORNAPRAJM HOUSE BUILD. CO-OP. SOCIETY [BP. SINGH. J.] 99 J

Ir Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without A
' such approval in such class of cases as the Appropriate Government
\.
may specify in this behalf];

[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at
any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the
persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed B
in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector
in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government,
he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to
\ the terms of such agreement.

(3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub- c
section (2) shall not, in anyway affect the determination of
compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere
in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act,
~- 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be D
liable to registration under that Act.

l IA. Period within which an award shall be made.-(!) The Collector
shall make 11rl 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 E
the !and shall lapse:

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 commencement. F
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 excludedl-

-·
G
12. Award of Collector when to befinal-{l) Such award shall be filed
in the Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be
final and conclusive evidence. as between the Collector and the

_,
_,
persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before
the Collector or not. of the true area and value of the land, and H
992 SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such
of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their
representatives when the award is made".

B Section 11 envisages that an enquiry may not be concluded on the very
first day and, therefore, authorizes the Collector to adjourn the considerations
of objections to any day fixed in the notice. However, after considering the
objections he is obliged to make an award under his hand regarding (i) the
true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be
allowed and (iii) the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons
C interested.

The first proviso to Section 11 provides that an award shall not be made
by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate Government
or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize. Thus before
an award can be said to have been made it is mandatory that it must be
D approved by the Government or the officer authorized in this behalf.

Section I IA provides the period within which an award shall be made.
It prescribes a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration
as the period within which an award must be made. lfno award is made within
E that period the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.
The explanation to Section 11 A clarifies that in computing the period of two
years, the period during which action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance
of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.
... ,
Before we consider the main submission urged on behalf of the
F appellants, we shall consider the submission urged by them that in the instant
case, the period during which the stay granted by the High Court operated
can not be excluded because the order of stay had been obtained by the
Society itself and, therefore, it can not take advantage of the stay granted by
the High Court. The submission must be rejected. The order of stay passed
on 29.6.90 by the High Court was in the following terms :-
G
"Operation of the declaration dated 30.6.1988 issued by the respondent
No. I in No. RD 182 AQB 84 (Annexure-A to the W.P.) be and the same
is hereby stayed, for a period of two weeks from 29.6.1990".
-
As noticed earlier, the operation of the order of stay was continued until
H ·'
BAILAMMA (f!: DODOADAll.A~1MA ID) 1·. l'OORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILD. CO-OP_ SOCIETY {B.P. SINGH. J.] 993

further orders and was ultimately modified by an order of February 7, 1991 A
which is as follows:-

"Interim order of stay granted by this Court on 29.6.90 and continued
by order dated I 0.7.1990 shall not prevent the Government in giving
approval to the draft Award which is said to be pending considerations
before the Government". B
A mere reading of the order of stay of June 29, 1990 makes it abundantly
clear that the operation of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act
was itself stayed, that is to say, as if no declaration has been made under
Section 6 of the Act. Such being the position no steps required to be taken
under the Act after publication of the declaration under Section 6 could be C
taken either by the Collector or by the Government. The Government was,
therefore, prevented from approving the award submitted to it by the collector.
Thus, it was on account of the order of stay passed by the High Court that
the Government was prevented from granting approval earlier than February
7, 1991, when it was clarified that the order will not prevent the Government D
only from giving approval to the draft award pending consideration before it.
Once, the order of stay was so modified, the Government granted approval
on November 16, 1992. It was not disputed before us that if the period from
June 29, 1990 to November 18, 1992 is excluded from the time taken in making
the award, the award must be held to have been made within two years from
the day of last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. E
The submission that the stay order was obtained by the Society itself
is of no consequence, having regard to the language of explanation to Section
../ I IA of the Act. The exclusion of the period during which the order of stay
cperated is not dependant upon the party obtaining such an order. An order F
passed by the Court must be obeyed by all concerned. In the instant case
the Society moved the High Court and obtained an order of stay. In effect,
the order operated in such a manner that the Government was prevented from
granting approval to the award even if it so desired, nor could it refuse
i
approval during the period the order of stay operated. Therefore, explanation

~
to Section 11 A came into operation and in accordance therewith the period G
during which the order of stay operated must be excluded from the total time
taken to make the award.
l.1 '.
Reliance was placed by the appellants on the observations made by this
Court in Yusujbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State ofGujarat & Anr., [1991]
4 sec 531. In our view the aforesaid decision in fact supports the case of the H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 I S.C.R.

A respondents. In the aforesaid judgment it was held:-
"The said Explanation is in the widest possible ter:ns and, in our
opinion, there is no warrant for limiting the action or proceedings
referred to in the Explanation to actions or proceedings preceding the
making of the award under Section I I of the said Act".
B
That was no doubt a case where an order of injunction was obtained by the
land-holder restraining land acquisition authorities from taking possession of
the land. It was, in that context, that this Court observed that to get the •
benefit of the said provision the land-holder who seeks the benefit must not ~
have obtained any order from Court restraining any action or proceedings in
C pursuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is, therefore, not
possible to accept the submission urged on behalf of the appellants that
Section 11 A of the Act must be read in a narrow sense so as to apply to only
those cases where the land-owner himself obtained an order of stay or
injunction. We are not prepared to add words in the explanation by reading
D into it a provision that gives to the explanation a narrower operation than
what was intended for it by the legislature, so as to apply only to cases where
an order of injunction is obtained by the land-owner and not by anyone else.

We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in Government
of T.N. and Anr. v. Vasantha Bai, [ 1995] supp 2 SCC 423. This Court observed:-
E
"Parliament enacted Section 11-A with a view to prevent inordinate
delay being made by the Land Acquisition Officer in making the
award. The price to be paid for the land acquired under compulsory
acquisition is the prevailing price as on the date of publication of
Section 4(1) notification. The delay in making the award deprives the
F owner of the enjoyment of his property or to deal with the land whose
possession has already been taken, and delay in making the award,
would subject the owner of the land to untold hardship. With a view
to relieve hardship to the owner or person interested in the land and
to remedy the lapses on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in
making the award, Section 11-A was enacted which enjoins making of
G
award expeditiously. So, outer limit of two years from the last of the
dates of publications, envisaged in Section 6 of the Act was fixed. If
he fails to do so, all the acquisition proceedings under the Act would
stand lapsed and the owner of the land or person interested in the
land is made free to deal with the land as an unencumbered land.
H
BAILAM~fA (<i DODDABAILAMMA ID),. POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILD. CO-OP. SOCIETY [BP SINGH. J J 995

•\ Cognizant to the fact that the acquisilion proceedings are questioned A
in a court of law, Parliament enacted Explanation to Section 11-A
declaring that the period during which action or proceedings taken in
pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 is stayed by an order
of the court, the same "shall be excluded"."

This Court emphasized the fact that Section 11-A was enacted with a B
view to prevent inordinate delay being made by Land Acquisition Officer in
~
making the award which deprived owners of the enjoyment of the property
or to deal with the land whose possession has already been taken Delay iii
~
making the award subjected the owner of the land to untold hardship. The
objects and reasons for introducing Section 11-A into the Act were that "the
pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods often causes hardship
c
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,
therefore, was on the Collector making his award within the period prescribed. D
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 wer~
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 an order of stay operated, which prevented the authorities
from taking any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration, must
E
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 11-A was meant to deal with
situations of this kind_ The explanation is in the widest possible terms which
do not limit its· operation to cases where an order of stay is obtained by a F
land-owner alone. One can conceive of cases where apart from land-owners
others may be interested in stalling the land 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 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 of the land. There may be others who
G
may be interested in obtaining an order of stay being aggrieved by the
f' acquisition proceeding. It may be that on account of development of that area
' -
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 H
996 SUPRE:vtE COURT REPORTS [2006) I S.C.R.

A which a person other than the owner may be interested in defeating the
acquisition proceeding. Once an order of stay is obtained and the Government i
•
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
B step5 in the acquisition proceeding for which the authorities are not to blame.

We, therefore, agree with the High Court that after excluding the period
during which the order of stay operated, the award was made within the
period prescribed by Section 11 A of the Act.
c This takes us to the main point urged in the appeals by the appellants.
Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, senior advocate, submitted that no award was made in
accordance with Section 11 of the Act. The award sent to the Government
for approval was at best a draft award. After the Government granted approval
no further action was taken by the Collector to make an award. It is his
D contention that after the award was approved by the Government the Collector
should have signed the award and thereafter communicated his award to the
parties. This was not done and, therefore, in the eye of law no award was
made by the Collector. He further submitted that no consent award was made
in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 11. Moreover, before the Full
Bench it was not even argued by the respondents that a consent award under
E sub-section (2) of Section 11 was made by the Collector. In any event even
the question of making an award by consent did not arise, since no award
whatsoever was made within the period prescribed by law, since the approved
award remained a draft award.

Mr. Ganguli appearing for some of the appellants submitted that the
F
notice issued under Section 11 of the Act was not relevant. What was
relevant was the date of the signing of the award. The award attained finality
under Section 12, ifit was filed in the Collector's office, regardless of the fact
whether the persons interested appeared before the Collector or not. According
to him, the award referred to in Section 12 is the award made under Section
G 11. Therefore, unless an award is made under Section 11 the stage of filing
of the award in the Collector's office under Section 12 is not reached and,
therefore, unless the award is first made in accordance with Section 11, no
award can be filed in the Collector's office under Section 12.

Shri Nageshwar Rao, senior advocate appearing on behalf of some of
H the appellants, adoptt:d th<:! arguments advanced on behalf of other appellants
1 B:\ILA\1MA@ DODDARAILA:\fMA (D) I'. POORNAPRAJNA HOL'SE BUILD. C'O-OP SOCIETY !B.P s1;..:G11. J J 997

.. and in particular submitted that there was non-compliance with the legal
requirements for making an award by consent. He also took us through the
A
• material on record to submit that no consent award was made, and in any
event the legal requirements were not fulf111ed to bring into existence a
consent award.

On the other hand, Shri P.P. Rao, senior advocate appearing on behalf B
of some of the respondents, contented that under Section 11 tlie Collector has
to make an award but with the prior approval of the State Government. The
award made by the Collector is an offer to the persons concerned which binds
~ the Collector but not the persons concerned who may challenge the findings
of the Collector in a proceeding under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act.
Adverting to the facts of the case, he submitted that the award sent to the
c
Government for approval was a signed award. Once the said award was
approved as it was, that is without any alteration, the award came into effect
and the moment it was filed in the office of the Collector under Section 12
of the Act, it became final subject to the objections that may be raised by
the persons concerned in proceedings under the Act. According to him, the D
award was filed in the office of the Collector between 16th November, 1992
·• and 20th November, 1992 and a notice was given to the parties concerned
regarding making of the award on November 20, 1992. Thus, an award was
made in accordance with law. There was no need for the Collector to sign the
award twice. It was enough if the award was made by the Collector and
E
approved by the Government within the statutory periqd of two years from
the date of last declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. In the
alternative, he submitted that in respect of I 8 acres and I guntha of land a
consent award was made and the dispute related only to 2 acres and I 0
j
gunthas belonging to Bailamma (Petitioner) in Civil Appeal No. 2013of1999.
F
At this stage, we may observe that having regard to the controversy
raised before us, we required the State to produce before us the original file.
Shri Sanjay Hegde, counsel for the State, produced before us the original file,
from which it appears that after the award was signed by the Collector on
March 13, 1990, the Society had moved the High Court by way of Writ
Petition for a mandamus directing the State Governm·ent to approve the G
z award. However, after the order of the High Court dated 7th February, 1991,
modifying the earlier interim order of stay and permitting the Government to
_,,;.
r·
take a decision with regard to the approval of the award. the Divisional
Commissioner sent the award to the Government for approval on I0.6.1991.
The Government granted its approval on 16.11. 1992 and the record was H
998 SUl'RE~E COURT REPORTS (2006] I S.C.R.

A returned to the office of the Collector. On November 20, 1992, notice under
Section 12(2) was issued after the file was received by the Deputy Commissioner.
He also pointed out the agreements in Form 'D' signed by the person
authorized under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, namely, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer.

B In this factual background, we now proceed to consider the submissions
urged before us.

Section 11 of the act requires the Collector to make an enquiry
into the objections, if any, made by the persons interested pursuant to
the notices given under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act as to the value of
c the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4.
He is also required to make an enquiry into the respective interest of
the persons claiming the compensation. After considering the objections
raised by the persons interested he is required to make an award under
his hand which should contain his findings on the matters enumerated
D in (i). (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (I) of Section 11. The proviso to
Section 11, however, mandates that the Collector shall not make an
award under this sub-section without previous approval of the
appropriate Government.

The Collector is required to hear the persons interested and enquire
E into the objections, if any, raised by them on the points which he is
required to determine. It is possible to conceive that he may hear the
objections on several dates having regard to the number of objectors
and the nature of the dispuce that may arise, where-after he must make
up his mind and prepare his award. It is not expected of him that he
F should prepare his award in presence of the persons interested, since
the Collector may take some time to make up his mind on the matters
he is required to incorporate in his award. Thereafter, he is required to
send his award to the Government for approval. The approval of the
award may take sometime, and it is not known to the Collector as to
when the Government will approve the award. However, after the award
G is approved. ifthere is no altention in the award, he is required to notify
the parties concerned about the award. He may do so by fixing a date
on which the parties may be required to appear for pronouncement of
the award. or he may inform them by giving them written notice of the
award. Th is is because an award is in the nature of an offer and mus!
H be communicated to the persons to whom the offer is made. There is
BAILAMMA@ DODDABAILAMMA ID),. POORNAPRAJNA HOl'SE BUILD CO-OP. SOCIETY (B.P. SINGH. J.] 999

nothing in Section 11 which expressly requires the Collector to announce A
Ii..
his award in the presence of the persons interested, though there is
' nothing which prevents him from declaring the award on a date fixed
by him for the purpose. However, having regard to the provisions of
Section 12(2) of the Act, he must give immediate notice to such of the
persons interested as are not present personally or by their representative
when the award is made. Thus viewed, there can be no doubt that after B
the award is approved the same becomes an offer to be made to the
persons interested, and this can be done by either giving notice to the
persons interested of the date on which he may orally pronounce the
award, or by giving written notice of the award to the persons interested.
The question of limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 or c
Section 30 of the Act has to be determined by reference to the date on
which the award was either pronounced before the parties who were
present, or the date of the receipt of notice of the award by those not
present. The mere fact that the Collector did not pronounce the award
after notice in the presence of the parties interested will not invalidate
the award, though it may have a bearing on the question of limitation D
-1 in the matter of seeking a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act.
The award which has already been signed by the Collector becomes an
award as soon as it is approved by the Government without any
alteration. At best the appellants can contend that it becomes an award
when notice is given to the parties interested. Viewed from any angle, E
having regard to the fact that there is no dispute that the Government
granted its approval on 16.11.1992 and notices were issued under Section
12(2) of the Act on November 20, 1992, it must be held that the award
r was made within the period prescribed by Section 11 A of the Act. There
was really no necessity for the Collector to sign the award again, nor
does Section 11 require that for the purpose of pronouncing the award F
notice should be given by the Collector to the persons interested.
Section 11 requires notice to be given for the purpose of hearing
objections. After the objections are heard, the Collector has to apply his
mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances and prepare an award
whereafter he is required to send it to the Government for approval. G
There is nothing in Section 11 which requires him to give notice to the
persons interested of the date for pronouncement of the award, though,
• T
as we have observed earlier, there is also nothing which prevents him
from giving such notice. We agree with the finding of the High Court
that once it is shown that the award was made and signed and approved
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A by the Government within the period prescribed by Section I IA of the
Act an award is validly made. In the instant case, we have satisfied
ou;selves that the award was received by the Deputy Commissioner
after approval, and notice was thereafter issued under Section 12(2) of
the Act on November 20, 1992.

B In view of our finding it is not necessary for us to consider the
submission urged on behalf of the respondents that the award made by the
Collector was a consent award at least in respect of 18 acres and I guntha
of land.

We find no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
C In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

v.s. Appeals dismissed.

..