L.N. VENKATESANversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

                          L.N. VENKATESAN                                   A
                                    v.
             THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

                             APRIL 4, 1997

          [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)                            B

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 11-A-f'roviso a11d Explanation.

      Land Acquisitio11-Award--Period within which should be
passed-Computation of period-Land acquisition proceeding-Notification C
under Section 4(1) published 011 11.6.1975-Declaration under Section 6
published on March 3, 1978-Writ filed by La11dow11er--lnte1i111 Stay granted
by Cowt-Conseq11e11tly Land Acquisition Officer could not obtain posses-
sion of lan~Award not made within two years under Section I I-A-Held in
the circumstances declaration under Section 6 does not get lapsed and D
consequently 11otificatio11 under section 4( 1) also does not lapse.

      Yusujbhai Noomiohamed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1991)
SC 2153, relied on.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)              E
Nos. 5613-14 of 1997.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.96 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. No. 3450/88 & W.M.P. No. 5231 of 1988.

      K.B.S. Rajan for the Petitioner.                                      F
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      These special leave petitions arise from the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court, made on July 19, 1996 in
W.M.P. No. 5231/88. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Ac- G
quisition Act was published on 11.6.1975. Declaration under Section 6
was published on March 3, 1978. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 7645/86
and obtained stay of dispossession. Since the award was not made within
two years under Section 11-A, he filed another writ petition, viz. W.P.
No. 3450/88. The High Court holding that the bar of proviso does not H
                                   661
      662                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1997J 3 S.C.R.

-A attracts the operation of the stay obtained by the petitioner in the earlier
      writ petition. Therefore, the acquisition does not stand lapsed. Learned
      counsel for the petitioner contends that the interim stay granted was "not
      to dispossess" the petitioner and there is no impediment for the authorities
      to proceed further in passing the award. We find no force in the contention.

 B          Section 11-A of the Act which reads as follows :

              "11-A. Period within which an award shall be made. - The
              Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period
              of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration
 c            and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceed-
              ings after 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, 1984, the award shall be made within a
 D
              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 proceed-
              ing to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed
 E            hy an order of a Court shall be excluded."

            The principle laid down by this Court in Yusufblzai Noomwhamed
      Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1991) SC 2153 is that the owner of
      the land or a person, who is interested in the land and wants to take
      advantage of Section 11-A of the Act, must not have obtained an interim
  F   order, against the Land Acquisition Officer, of whatsoever nature. The
      relevant portion of the said judgment, which is contained in paragraph
      8 is as followed :

              "The said explanation is in the widest possible terms and, in our
  G           opinion, there is no warrant for limiting the action or proceed-
              ings referred to in the Explanation to actions or proceedings,
              proceeding 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
  H           can be taken before an award is made and we see no reason why
                      L.N. VENKATESAN v. STATE                          663

          the aforesaid expression in the Explanation should be given a A
          different meaning depending upon whether the case is covered by
          Section 17 or otherwise. On the other hand, it appears to us that
          the Explanation is intended to confer a benefit on a land-holder
          whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section is made
          in cases covered by the explanation. The benefit is that the award B
          must be made within a period of two years of declaration, failing
          which the acquisition proceedings would lapse and the land 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 C
          or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 of
          the said Act so that Explanation covers only the cases of those
          land- holders who do not obtain any order from a court which
          would delay or prevent the making of the award or taking posses-
          sion of the land acquired In our opinion, the Gujarat High Court D
          was right in taking a similar view in the impugned judgment."

       It is not is dispute in this case that the petitioner filed W.P. No.
  10351/1982, seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings in question,
  in respect of the remaining area of 6 acres comprised in S. No. 232/lC
  in Kottivakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk and obtained an interim order E
  which disabled the Land Acquisition Officer, even though it related to
  a portion of the survey number in question, to proceed in the matter,
  much less to pass an Award. The said writ petition was allowed on
  8.1.1988. Acquisition, in so far as it related to the extent of 6 acres,
  comprised in the survey No. referred to above, was quashed. Even F
  during the pendency of W.P. No. 10351/1982, petitioner had filed
  another writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 7645/1986 and obtained an interim
  order. W.P. No. 6745/1986 related to the remaining portion of 4-33 acres
  and that writ petition is heard along with this writ petition. However,
  we pass a separate order in that writ petition. The interim order ob- G
  tained in W.P. No. 7645/1986 disabling the Land Acquisition Officer to
  obtain possession of the land in question, is still in operation. Therefore,
; from the year 1982 today, there has been an interim order passed in one
  of the writ petitions referred to above, operation against the Land
  Acquisition Officer, disabling him to take possession of the land.           H
    664                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 f1997] 3 S.C.:K.

A          Under the circumstances, declaration under Section 6 does not get
    lapsed and consequently notification under section 4(1) also does not
    lapse.

          The special leave petitions arc accordingly dismissed.

B T.N.A.                                                 Petitions dismissed.