Holding

The two‑year period for making an award under Section 11‑A must be counted from the last of the three modes of publication prescribed in Section 6(2), and an award made after that period is void, causing the acquisition proceedings to lapse.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land for a planned development scheme. The landowners challenged the validity of the notifications and later the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, arguing that the award was passed after the two‑year period prescribed in Section 11‑A (Section 1IA) of the Act. The High Court held that the award was within time by treating the stay order as excluded from the limitation period and by accepting a later date of publication. The Supreme Court examined the statutory language of Section 6(2) and held that the limitation period must be computed from the last date of publication under all three modes prescribed, and that a stay does not extend the period. Consequently, the award dated 18 September 1998 was beyond the statutory period, rendering the acquisition proceedings void. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeals of the landowners, directing that fresh proceedings may be initiated if the State still wishes to acquire the land.

Issues considered

The correct date to be treated as the 'date of publication of the declaration' for computing the two‑year period under Section 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether a court‑ordered stay of the acquisition proceedings is excluded from the limitation period under Section 11‑A.
Whether an award made after the two‑year period is void and the acquisition proceedings lapse.
Whether the High Court's interpretation of the statutory provisions was legally sound.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11-A, s. 17, s. 1IA, s. 4, s. 5A, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 6 publicationSection 11-A limitationAward validityStatutory periodAcquisition proceedings lapsePublic purposeProcedural compliance

Judgment

+
.,J
KUNWAR PAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

MARCH 26, 2007

[C.K. THAKKERAND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 5A, 6, 11-A and 17-Land
Acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act-Writ Petitions by land
owners before High Court contending that the land has not been acquired
for public purpose was partly allowed-Supreme Court dismissing the appeals
c
of the land owners and allowing the appeals of the State with a direction
to pass an Award within a prescribed period-Land Acquisition officer making
an Award-Writ Petitions by land owners challenging the validity of the
Award on the ground that it is made beyond the statutory period-High
Court dismissing the Writ Petitions-Correctness of-Held, on law, the D
statutory period prescribed under the Act must be strictly adhered t~n
~
facts, the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is made beyond the statutory
period and hence it is null and void.

Respondent-State published a preliminary Notification under section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land belonging to E
appellants for construction of residential/commerical buildings under a
Planned Development Scheme. A Declaration under section 6 of the Act was
also published in the Official Gazette under section 6 of the Act The provisions
of Section 17(1) of the Act were invoked and enquiry under section SA of the
_,. Act has been dispensed with.
F
The appellants filed Writ Petitions before High Court challenging the
validity of the Notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act inter
alia on the ground that the land had not been acquired for public purpose and
that the action of the State in taking recourse to the provisions of Section 17
of the Act was arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court partly allowed G
the writ petitions and quashed the Notification under section 6 of the Act
holding that it was invalid in terms of the amended provisions of section 17(4)
of the Act. The appellants and the State filed Special Leave Petitions before
this Court. This Court, after granting leave, allowed the appeals of the State

409 H
+
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A and dismissed the appeals of the appellants-claimants. This Court directed \..
the Land Acquisition officer to pass an Award within a period of six months
from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.

The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award and published it in a local
daily newspaper. The appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High Court
B challenging the Award on the ground that the Award was made after the
statutory period of two years as contemplated under section llA of the Act
and hence it is null and void. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions
holding that the Award was made withiri the statutory period if the period of
interim stay granted by the High Court and this Court is not taken into
C account. Hence the appeals before this Court.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on a plain
reading, deals with various modes of publication. There is no option left with
D anyone to give up or waive any modes and all such modes have to be strictly
resorted to. Where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for
doing a particular act, then that thing or act must be done in accordance with <,
the manner prescribed therefor in the Act. The provisions of section 11-A
are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the Award is made
within a period of two years from the date ~fthe declaration under section 6
E of the Act. When the Government fails to make an Award within two years of
the declaration under section 6 of the Act, the land has still not vested in the
Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings
are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of section 11-A of the Act,
the proceeding will elapse. The period of two years referred to in section 11-
F A of the Act shall be computed by counting from the last of the publication
dates as per the prescribed modes of publication. The words 'the last of the
dates of such publication and the i:iving of such public notice being hereinafter
referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration' under section 6
(2) of the Act leave no room for assumptions to the contrary. The view by the
High Court not only runs counter to the mandate oflaw enact~ by Parliament,
G but is opposed to the dicta of this Court. The entire acquisition proceedings
for acquiring the land of the appellants culminating in the Award after the
period contemplated in section 11-A of the Act shall elapse completely.
[Paras 17, 18, 21and29) [416-D-H; 418-A-B; 420-E\

H Eugenio Misquita & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 47;
KUNWARPALSINGH(DEAD)BYLRS. ,.. STATEOFU.P. [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.) 411
:--
.J Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Markant Singh, (199512 SCC 497; General A
Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram v. Jacob
s/o Kochuvarkey Kalliath (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (20031 9 SCC 662 and Bihar
State Housing Boardv. State of Bihar & Ors., [2003] 10 SCC 1, referred to.

State of Haryana & Anr. v. Raghubir Dayal, [19951 1 sec 133,
distinguished. B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6099 of200l.
_,i

'• From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2000 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 31681 of 1998.
c
WITH
C.A. No. 6100 and 6101 of2001 and

Cont. P. (C) No. 480 of2004.
D
In C.A. No. 6099 of 200 l.
)

Rakesh Dwivedi, Rakesh Khanna, Dushyant Dave, Pradeep Misra and
T. Mahipal for the Appellant.

S.R. Singh, Anis Suhrawardy, Shamama Anis, S. Mehdi Imam, Tahrez E
Ahmad, Raj Kumar Gupta, Kamelendra Mishra, Rajeev Dubey, H.C. Kharbanda
and M.P. Shorawala for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. These appeals (being Civil Appeal p
Nos. 6099, 6100 and 6101 of2001) are directed against a common judgment
and order dated 28th February, 2000 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the impugned order, the High Court
dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 31681/1998, 32856/1998 and 32857I
1998 filed by the petitioners-appellants herein challenging the correctness and
validity of the Award passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition G
Act, 1894 [for short "the Act"].

- 2. These appeals are taken up and heard together and are decided by
this common judgment.

3. Facts necessary to understand and comprehend the controversy H
t
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.

A involved in these cases are briefly stated as under:-
4. The appellants are the ownerslbhoomidars of different parcels of
lands in village Dantal, Distric.t Meerut, Uttar Pradesh [for short "U.P."]. As
per the Zonal Development Plan, the lands of the appellants fall under Zone-
IV. On 11.06.1985, the State ofU.P. issued a Notification under Section 4 of
B the Act proposing to acquire 168 bighas of land including the land of the
appellants for construction of residential/commercial buildings by the Meerut
Development Authority (MDA) respondent No.3 herein under a Planned
Development Scheme. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published
in the Official Gazette on 13.6.1985. On 19.7.1985, Notification under Section
C 4 of the Act was published in the local newspapers and Declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was published in the newspapers on 25.07.1985. The
substance of both the Notifications was published in the local newspapers
on 25.07.1985. The provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were also invoked
and enquiry under Section 5-A has been dispensed with.

D 5. The appellants and some more owners of the lands filed separate writ
petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 1985
challenging the validity of the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act
inter alia on the grounds that the lands of the owners had not been acquired
for public purpose and that the action of the State Government in taking
recourse to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act was arbitrary and
E discriminatory. The Division Bench allowed the writ petitions in part vide
order dated 14.01.1988 by holding that the substance of the two Notifications
contemplated by Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act was given on the same
day, i.e. on 25.07.1985 in the locality, therefore, the Notification under Section
6 of the Act would be invalid in terms. of the amended provisions of Section
F 17(4) of the Act. Consequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
quashed.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants and the MDA both had challenged
the order of the High Court by special leave petitions in this Court in the year
1988.
G
7. This Court granted leave in all the special leave petitions. Civil
Appeal No. 1828 of 1988 filed by the MDA was allowed by the Court vide
judgment dated 19.09.1996. The appeals of the claimants including the
appellants were dismissed. The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to
pass the Awards within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the
H
KUNWARPALSINGH(DEAD)BYLRS. v. STATEOFU.P. [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.] 413

order of this Court [see Meerut Development Authority v. Satbir Singh & A
Ors., [19%] 11 sec 462].

8. It appears from the record that thereafter the respondents herein had
conducted a fresh survey of the lands and prepared a site plan marking the
lands in different colours as per the nature and extent of the areas. On
20.10.1997, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in respect of 22 B
bighas 16 biswas and 12 biswansi of land and an area of 54 bighas 11 biswas
and 16 biswansi was excluded from the acquisition including some portions
. of the lands of the appellants because some constructions were found having
... been raised over that extent of land by the people residing near and around
the area and the MDA had declined to take possession of the constructed C
area. It is the case of the appellants that the Land Acquisition Officer made
an Award on 18.09.1998 in respect of their acquired land without giving any
notice or hearing to the appellants and also beyond the period of two years.
The respondents notified the making of the Award by the Land Acquisition
Officer in "Dainik Jagran" (a Hindi daily newspaper).
D
9. The appellants filed Civil Writ Petitions in the year 1998 in the High
)
Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the Award inter alia on the
grounds that the Award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer after the
statutory period as contemplated under Section l lA of the Act. The High
Court granted stay of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Finally, the
Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions by holding that the Award marked E
as Annexure-4, specifically referred to 13.08.1985, the date of publication of
declaration under Section 6 of the Act and accepting the said date as the last
date of publication and the fact that stay was operating since 02.08.1985 till
19.09.1996, the Award dated 18.09.1998 was held having been made within the
period of limitation as envisaged by Section l lA of the Act and as such the F
proceedings initiated for acquisition would not lapse. The appellants were
directed to handover the possession of the acquired land within three months
from the date of the order. The order of the High Court would reveal thai
subsequently at the request of the counsel, six months' time was granted to
the appellants and other persons who were parties before the High Court for
handing over the possession of the lands to the respondents. Now, the G
appellants are before this Court in these appeals.

- 10. Shri Anil Raj Kumar, Officer on Special Duty, MDA, respondent No.4
herein, in his counter affidavit states that the High Court has taken into
consideration the Award passed by the Collector specifically referring to H
-{--
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 4 S.C.R.

A 13.08.1985, the date of publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act
and the fact that the stay order was in operation w.e.f. 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996.
It is also stated that the High Court has upheld the Award having been
passed on 18.09.1998 within the period of limitation as prescribed by Section
l lA of the Act and as such the land acquisition proceedings would not lapse
B as contended by the appellants. He reasserted that declaration under Section
6 of the Act was issued on 13.08.1985 and not on 25.07.1985 as alleged by
the appellants.

11. Smt. Nisha Goel, Additional District Magistrate (Joint Organisation),
Meerut, in joint counter affidavit, filed on behalf of State ofU.P.-respondent
C No. I, District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut respondent no.2 and Additional
District Magistrate (Joint Organisation), M~erut - respondent no. 3 in paragraph
4(d) has stated the details of the dates on which the respective publications
came to be made. She has specifically stated that the gist of the Notification
under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(2) was made in the locality
on 13.08.1985 by beat of drums. She stated that out ofthe total area of 168
D bighas 7 biswas and 4.15 biswansi notified for acquisition, possession to the
extent of 85 bighas 12 biswas and 12 biswansi was taken over on 16.08.1985
and an Award with respect to the said land was also given on 24.07.1987. Out
of the remaining land measuring 77 bighas 8 biswas and 8.15 biswansi, an area
of 46 bighas 12 biswas and 17.5 biswansi is covered by unauthorised
E construction, therefore, it was left out of acquisition. She stated that the
Award dated 18.09 .1998 made by the Land Acquisition Collector pertains only
to land admeasuring 7 bighas 19 biswas and 9 biswansi.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the entire material on record.
F
13. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that
in terms of Section l lA of the Act, it is mandatory to make an Award within
two years from 25.07.1985, the date of the publication of the declaration under
Section 6 of the Act. Admittedly, the Award was made on 18.09.1998 and as
such, _according to the learned counsel, the acquisition proceedings have
G become null and void. He urged that the High Court has failed to appreciate
the import of the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the Act in proper
perspective and therefore, the order impugned in these appeals deserVes to
be set aside.

14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of
H U. P. and MDA contended that the High Court was right in holding that the
i-
KUNWARPALSINGH(DEAD)BYLRS. v. STATEOFU.P. [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.] 415
...
...J. substance of the declaration under Section 6(2) was published in the locality A
on 13.08.1985 and after excluding the period between 02.08.1985 till I9.09. I996
in tenns of Explanation to Section I IA of the Act, when the land acquisition
proceedings remained pending in the High Court of Allahabad and later on
till Civil Appeal No.1828 of I 988 and connected matters came to be finally
decided by this Court on I9.09.I996.
B
IS. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, a few
provisions of the Act need to be noted. They are Section 6(I) and (2) and
,J
Section I I A of the Act.

"Section 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-
c
(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the
Appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if
any, made under section SA, sub-section (2), that any particular land
is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall
be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such
Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders D
) and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect
of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification
under section 4, sub-section (I), irrespective of whether one report or
different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under
section 5-A, sub-section (2): E
[Provided ..................................................

Provided further ...................................... ]

[Explanation I ...........................................
F
Explanation 2.............................................]

(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, [and
in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land
is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and
the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such G
declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the
last of the date of such publication and the giving of such public
..... notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the
declaration), and such declaration shall state] the district or other
territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which
H
-t
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A it is needed, its approximate area, and where a plan shall have been
made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.

(3) ........................................ .

16. Section I IA of the Act and Explanation thereto (omitting the
B proviso which is not material in this case) are as under:

"I IA. Period within which an award shall be made.-{l) The 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
c the land shall lapse:

Provided .................. .

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
D
shall be t:xcluded.

17. Section 6(2), on a plain reading, deals with the various modes of
publication and they are: (a) publication in the Official Gazette, (b) publication
in two daHy newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate
E of which at least one shall be in the regional language and (c) causing public
notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places
in the said locality. There is no option left with anyone to give up or waive
any mode and all such modes have to be strictly resorted to. The principle
is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner
for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance
F with the manner prescribed therefor in the Act.

18. The provisions of Section I IA are intended to benefit the land
owner and ensure that the Award is made within a period of two years from
the date of the declaration under Section 6. In ordinary course, therefore,
when the Government fails to make an Award within two years of the
G declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government
and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still
pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 1 I A, the proceedings will
elapse. The period of two years referred to in Section I IA shall be computed
by counting from the last of the publication dates, as per the prescribed
H modes of publication.
' KUNWARPALSINGH(DEAD)BYLRS. v. STATEOFU.P. [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.J 417

19. In the present cases, as noted above, the appellants and other A
landholders· filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition in the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in the year 1985 whereby and whereunder they have
challenged combined Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act issued
by the State Government. The High Court vide order dated 14.01.1988 partly
allowed the writ petition,s. It appears from the record that MDA and some
claimants feeling aggrieved, filed separate sets of appeals against the judgment B
dated 14.01.1988 in this Court. This Couft allo*ed Civil Appeal No.1828 of
1985 filed by MDA and dismissed the appeals of the claimants. By judgment
dated 19.09.1996, this Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed
the Collector to make Awards within a period of six months from the date of

-
the receipt of the order of this Court. Finally, the Collector made an Award C
on 18.09.1998 which came to be challenged by the appellants before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad inter alia on the ground that the Award was
made beyond the period as envisaged under Section l lA of the Act. The
High Court, as noted above, has held: "the Collector in the Award (Annexure
P-4) specifically refers 13.08.1985 as the date of publication ofNotification D
under Section 6. Accepting this as the last date of publication and the fact
thafstay was operating since 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996, we hold the Award
passed on 18.09.1998 was within the limitation as envisaged by Section llA
of the Act and as such the proceedings initiated for acquisition does not
lapse."

20. In our view, the order of the High Court is not legal and justified.
E
The Division Bench seems to have committed a patent error, despite the
decisions of :iis Court in Eugenio Misquita & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors.,
[1997] 8 sec 47 (which does not appear to have been brought to its notice).
While applying the ratio in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Mark.ant Singh,
[1995] 2 sec 497, this Court in Eugenio Misquita & Ors. (supra), observed F
at SCC p. 52, Para 9 as under:

" .... The publication under Section 6(2) of the Act is for a different
purpose, inter alia, for reckoning the limitation prescribed under Section
l lA of the Act. This construction is supported by the language
employed in Section 6(2) of the Act. In particular, the word G
"hereinafter" used in Section 6(2) will amply prove that the last of the
series of the publication referred to under Section 6(2) is relevant for
the purposes coming thereafter, namely, for making award under Section
I IA. The language employed in second proviso to Section 6(1) also
supports this c-0nstruction."
H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A 21. That apart, the words "the last of the dates of such publication and
the giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of
the publication of the declaration" leave no room for any assumptions to the
contrary. Thus, the view taken by the High Court in these cases not only
runs counter to the mandate of law enacted by Parliament, but is opposed to .
the dicta of this Court.
B
22. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad
dated 14.01.1988 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. I 0551 of 1985
and other connected petitions earlier filed by the appellants and other owners
of the land. In those cases, the High Court has observed that joint Notification ,,
C under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act w,as issued by
the State Government on 25.07.1985. The MDA in paragraph 13 of the
grounds of appeal being Civil Appeal No.18~8 of 1988 on the record of this
Court filed against the order of the High Court dated 14.01.1998 has specifically
stated that the substance of the two notifications contemplated by the
provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act was given on 25.07.1985 in the
D locality. Again, it was reasserted and stressed that publication of substance
in the iocality on the same day, i.e. on 25.07.1985, would not affect-the
appellants' rights adversely particularly when the provisions of Section 5A,
i.e. inviting objections against the acquisition of the appellants' lands, have
been disvensed with. The MDA has admitted in its grounds of appeal that
E substance of last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act
was given in the locality on 25.07.1985. Now, Shri Anil Raj Kumar, Officer on
Special Duty of MDA, in his counter affidavit filed before this Court in SLP
(C) No.8331 of 2000 has taken inconsistent stand when he states in para 2(11)
thus: 'the High Court has taken into conspectus the Award marked as Annexure
IV, specifically refers 13.08.1985 as a date of publication of Notification under .
F Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, accepting this as a last date of
publication and the fact that stay order was in operation w.e.f. 2.8.1985 till
19.9.1996'.

23. The statement of Smt. Nisha Goel made in the counter affidavit filed
by her on behalf of respondent Nos. I, 2 and 3 that the declaration of public
G notice by last mode under Section 6(2) of the Act by beat of drums in the
locality on 13.08.1985 manifestly is wrong and on the face of it contrary to
the contents of the Notice (Annexure R-2) filed by her with the affidavit. This
notice aated 13.08.1985 was issued by the Land Record Inspector, Block ...
I

Rohta, Tehsil Meerut, in response to the letter ofMDA dated 09.08.1985 and
H that of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, dated 01.08.1985. The
+
KUNWARPALSINGH(DEAD)BYLRS.1·. STATEOFU.P. [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.] 419

relevant substance of the notice reads as under:- A
"the land described in the enclosed list situate in village Danta, Block
Rohta, Tehsil Meerut has been acquired by the Meerut Development
Authority for its residential scheme and letter for obtaining its
possession has been received on 12.8.85 at 3 p.m. and intimation of
which has been given today 13.8.85 in village Dantal to all concerned B
fanner and residents of village by beat of drums and in loud voice that
notification had been published on 19.7.85, 25.7.1985 in daily
newspapers, "Meerut Samachar", Janta Express" and "Hamara Yug"
and Government Gazette. Since the land has been acquired for the
residential scheme of the Meerut Development Authority, no fanner C
should change the nature of rights in the land and the possession of
acquired land will be taken on 16.3.85."

24. This notice appears to have been signed by marginal witnesses Har
Pal Singh, Sudhir Kumar and Yash Vir Singh and thumb mark by Chhote on
13.08.1985. The language employed in this notice would not prove that it was D
the last mode of publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the Act. In
substance, this notice appears to have been issued in purporting exercise of
power under Section 9 of the Act for taking possession of the acquired land
on 16.08.1985. Thus, this Notification, in no circumstances, would prove that
it was the last mode of publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the Act.
E
25. This Court in General Manager, Department of Telecommunications,
Thiruvananthapuram v. Jacob s/o Kochuvarkey Kalliath (dead) by LRs. &
Ors., (2003] 9 SCC 662 has held that period of two years from the date of
publication of the declaration prescribed under Section 1 IA for passing the
Award, must be calculated from the last of the series of the publications F
referred to under Section 6(2) of the Act.

26. Again, in Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
[2003] IO SCC l, this Court reiterating the proposition of law has held that
modes of publication of declaration prescribed under Section 6(2) are conjoint
and cumulative and all of them must be resorted to and completed. Sub- G
section (2) of Section 6 of the Act necessarily makes it abundantly clear that
the last of the dates of the publication and giving of such public notice shall
"hereinafter" be referred to as the date of publication of the declaration and
limitation period of two years for making Award under Section I IA has to be
counted as the last of the dates out. of the three modes of publication
specified in Section 6 of the Act. H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A 27. It is not in dispute that the land acquisition proceedings remained
stayed vide order of the High Court of Allahabad in the earlier writ petitions
filed by the appellants as also during the pendency of the SLPs filed by the
MDA and the appellants and other persons against the order dated 14.01.1988
of the High Court of Allahabad, which were decided on 19.09.1996. The Land
B Acquisition Collector has even failed to make the Award within stipulated
period of six months as directed by this Court vide order dated 19 .09 .1996.

28. The ratio of the judgment in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Raghubir
Dayal, [199S] l SCC 133, relied upon by the respondents, is of no assistance
or help to them. In that case, while dealing with the provisions of Sections
C 4( l ), SA and 6(2) of the Act, this Court held: "since there is an opportunity
already given to the owner of the land or persons having.interest in the land
to raise their objections during the inquiry under Section SA, or otherwise in
case of dispensing with inquiry under Section SA unless they show any
grave prejudice caused to them in non-publication of the substance of the
declaration under Section 6(1 ), the omission to publish the substance of the
D declaration under Section 6( l) in the locality would not render the declaration
of Section 6 .invalid. However, this does not mean that the officers should
not comply with the requirement of law. It is their duty to do it."
'
29. In the light of the settled principles of law in Eugenio Misquita &
Ors. (supra), General Manager, Department of Telecommunications,
E Thiruvananthapuram (supra) and Bihar State Housing Board (supra), the
entire acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the appellants
culminating in the Award made on 19.09.1998 after the period contemplated
in Section l lA of the Act shall elapse completely.

F 30. The High Court was not correct and justified in holding that the last
date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 was l3.8.l98S and not
25.07.1985. In the earlier civil writ petitions, the same High Court has accepted
2S.07.l98S as the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act.

3 l. No other point was urged by the parties. For all the reasons stated
G above, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad cannot be sustained. The Civil Miscellaneous Writ
Petition Nos. 31681, 328S6 and 328S7 of 1998 filed by the appellants before
the High Court shall stand allowed. These appeals are allowed with costs.

32. However, we make it clear that if the respondents are still interested
H to acquire the land of the appellants, they are not precluded from initiating
-+-
KUNWARPALSINGH(DEAD)BY LRS. "· STATEOFU.P. [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.j 421

fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
A

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 480 OF 2004 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.
6099 OF 2001

33. Kunwar Pal Singh, the original petitioner, filed Special Leave Petition B
No. 8331 of 2000 in this Court against the final judgment and order dated
28.02.2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3168/1988. The said special leave petition
came up for hearing on 10.07.2000 when this Court passed the following
order:-

"Issue notice.
c
Until further orders status quo as regards the possession so far as the
petitioner is concerned to be maintained."

34. The matter came up for hearing on 28.08.2001 when this Court
granted special leave to the petitioner and directed the interim order to D
continue in the meantime. Kunwar Pal Singh died during the pendency of
C.A. No. 6099 of 2001 and now his legal representatives are pursuing these
proceedings.

35. The controversy in these proceedings pertains to the acquisition of E
the lands of the appe'Ilants by the State Gove!11ffient for the benefit ofMeerut
Development Authority [for short "the MDA"]. The State Government in the
year 1985 issued joint notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] proposing to acquire
168 bighas ofland including the land of the appellants. The Land Acquisition
Officer made an Award on 20.10.1997 in respect of2 biswas ofland out of Plot F
No. 94. An area of3-16-5 bigha of land out of Plot No. 84 was left out from
acquisition. The appellants stated that later on, after a period of about 2 years
without giving any notice to them, the Land Acquisition Officer made an
Award dated 18.09.1998 in respect of 12 biswas of land out of Plot No. 94 and
3-16-5 bigha land out of Plot No. 84. The Award of the Land Acquisition G
Collector was challenged by the appellants and other land owners before the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad inter alia on the ground that the Award
came to be passed after the statutory period contemplated under Section l lA
of the Act. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The
High Court dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants and other claimants.

- The appellants have filed special leave petitions in this Court against the H
t
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.

A impugned common order of the High Court. In the special leave petition out
of which Civil Appeal No. 6099 of 200 I arises, the above said interim order
was passed by this Court. The grievance of the appellants in this contempt
petition is that the MDA has encroached upon I 0 biswas of land in Plot No.
84, therefore, the original appellant submitted representation dated 05.11.2003
requesting the MDA to get Plot No. 84 demarcated on the spot. The lower
B staff of MDA, for obvious reasons, wanted to encroach upon another Plot
No. 94 owned by the appellants. The appellants submitted that second
representation was made on 9.02.2004 to the Commissioner, MDA, requesting
the MDA to remove its encroachment on IO biswas ofland of Plot No. 84 and
no further encroachment should be made by the Authority on Plot No. 94.
C In response to the representations of the appellants, Officer on Special Duty,
MDA, vide letter dated 21.05.2004 informed the original appellant that because
of the operation of the status quo order passed by this Court in S.L.P. (C)
No. 8331/2000, it was not possible for the party to get the demarcation done
on Plot No. 84 measuring 3-16-5 bighas. The appellants alleged that the
District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut respondent No. 2 and the Additional
D District Magistrate (Joint Organisation), Meerut respondent No. 3 herein
came to Plot No. 94 accompanied by police force at about 18.45 hours with
bull dozers. One son of the original appellant went to the site and informed
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the other police officials not to take law into
their hands in demolishing the boundary wall of their farm house, but despite
E the order of. status quo passed by this Court they had demolished the
boundary wall and the cattle sheds constructed by the original appellant in
the middle of the plot. The appellants further alleged that respondents -
contemnor nos. 2 and 3 threatened to hand over the possession of Plot No.
94 to some other persons and once the construction work would be completed
on that plot, no Court would be able to get the possession restored to the
F original appellant. On these premises, the appellants have prayed to deal with
the contemn ors for wilful and intentional violation of the order of this Court
dated 28.08.2001 and punish them in accordance with law.

36. Shri Shantanu Kumar Trivedi, Additional Commissioner, Meerut
G Division, (former Vice-Chairman), MDA, in his counter affidavit has stated
that the lands forming part of Khasra Nos. 84 and 94 (plots) were acquired
for and on behalf of MDA for construction of residential houses. The Land
Acquisition Collector made an Award 18.09.1998 in respect of 12 biswas land
forming part of Plot No. 94 and 3 bighas 16 biswas and 5 biswani land out
of Khasra No. 84. He stated that MDA has full respect to the orders of the
H Courts and the status quo order passed by the Court was never disturbed by
-+ ;

KUNWARPALSINGH(DEAD)BYLRS. , .. STATEOFU.P. [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.) 423
..,
the MDA on the spot. It is his plea that after receiving the Report of Tehsil A
Lekpal as well as of the Engineer, the MDA demolished the existing
unauthorized construction on Plot No. 88. The construction on ?lot No. 94
after receipt of the Survey Report was left undisturbed. The deponent denied
allegations of the appellants regarding encroachment by the MDA over Khasra
No./Plot No.84. He stated that because of the operation of the status quo
orders of this Court, the MDA could not oblige the original appellant to get B
the area demarcated. It is contended by the deponent that the allegations
made in the contempt application by the appellants against the respondents
are wholly false and baseless. However, the deponent submitted that he has
not committed any contempt of the orders of this Court, still he has tendered
unqualified apology for any inconvenience caused to this Court. C
37. Shri Anoop Sharma, Assistant Engineer and Shri Girija Shankar Mall,
Junior Engineer of MDA, have filed their separate counter affidavits. They
have stated that the MDA has not at all disturbed the status quo order
passed by this Court in regard to the Plot Nos./Khasra Nos. 84 and 94 as ·
alleged by the appellants. Their stand is that it was only in respect of Plot D
No. 88 where development works were carried on as the said area was out
of the purview of the orders of any court. The allegations of wilful
disobedience of the status quo order passed by this Court are categorically
denied by them. However, both the officials have tendered an unconditional
apology.
E
38. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
scrutinized in detail the counter affidavits of the respondents, we are of the
view that there is nothing before us to show that the respondents have
wilfully flouted or intentionally violated the status quo order dated 10.07.2000
and 28.08.2001 passed by this Court. Therefore, it is not a fit case for F
initiating any proceedings for contempt against the respondents.

39. Consequently, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of.

40. Notice discharged.

B.S. Contempt Petition disposed of.