Holding

An award must be made within two years of the last publication of the declaration under Section 6; failure to do so renders the award void, and a corrigendum does not extend the statutory period.

Summary

The appellants, land owners, challenged an award dated 4 February 2003 made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that it was issued beyond the two‑year period prescribed by Section 11‑A, which requires an award to be made within two years of the last publication of the declaration under Section 6. The last publication of the declaration was on 28 February 2000; the State contended that a corrigendum issued on 25 January 2003 reset the time limit. The Supreme Court held that the statutory period is calculated from the date of the last publication of the declaration under Section 6 and that a later corrigendum does not affect this period, except where a court‑ordered stay is in place. Consequently, the award was beyond the statutory deadline and was declared void. The appeal was allowed and the award was quashed.

Issues considered

Whether an award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is invalid if it is issued after the two‑year period prescribed by Section 11‑A.
Whether a corrigendum to the declaration under Section 6 resets or extends the two‑year period for making the award.
Whether a court‑ordered stay can extend the period prescribed by Section 11‑A.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11-A, s. 4, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 11-ATime limit for awardCorrigendumStatutory interpretationLapse of proceedings

Judgment

A MOHAN AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

MARCH 13, 2007

B [S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: '
t
S.11-A-Period within which award to be made-Held, award has to
c be made within two years from date of publication of declaration-Failure
lo adhere lo this lime frame is fatal to the award as the provision is mandatory-
It is the date of last publication of declaration u/s 6 which is determinative
and not any subsequent corrigendum to the said declaration.

Appellant-land owners challenged the award dated 4.2.2003 contending
D that the last date of publication of declaration under section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 being 28.2.2000, the entire proceedings would stand
-( .
lapsed in view of the provisions of section 11-A of the Act.

The stand of the respondent-State Government was that the corrigendum
E for the final area proposed to be acquired was issued on 25.1.2003 and,
therefore the award dated 4.2.2003 was well within time.

Allowing the appeal of the land owners, the Court

HELD: In view of Section tlA of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an
F award has to be made within two years from the date of publication of the
declaration under Section 6. Failure to adhere to this time frame is fatal to -i -
the award, as the provision is mandatory. Under Section I IA what has to be
seen is the date of last publication of the declaration under Section 6, and not
any subsequent corrig;endum to the said declaration.
(Paras 7 and 9] (937-H; 938-A-D]
G ',
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1321 of2007.
\

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2005 of the High Count
of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 455 of
2004.
H 936
MOHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MARKANDEY K.ATJU, J.] 937

Uday B. Dube (for Kuldip Singh) for the Appellants. A
Sudhanshu Choudhari, Naresh Kumar, S.S. Shinde and V.N. Raghupathy
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has beeq filed against the impugned judgment of the
Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 12.4.2005 in Writ Petition
No.455 of2004.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
c
4. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 4.2.2003
published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Renapur
Medium Project at village Talegaon (Ghat). The High Court had dismissed
the writ petition and hence this appeal. D
5. The short point before us is whether the award was illegal in view
-·t of Section I IA of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act").

6. The date of last publication of the notification under Section 4 of the E
Act was I 8.2.1999 (in Gazette). The last publication of the declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was 28.2.2000 whereas the award was published on
4.2.2003. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the award ought
to have been published on or before 28.2.2000 which was the date of the last
declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel has invited our
- )-.. attention to Section I IA of the Act which states : F
"I IA. The collector shall make an award under Section I I within
a period of two years from the publication of the declaration and if
no award is made witbin that period, the entire proceedings for the
acquisition of the land shall lapse." G
7. In our opinion the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
·. i
is clearly correct in view of the clear provision of Section I IA of the Act. In
view of Section I I A an award has to be made within two years from the date
of publication of the declaration under Section 6. Failure to adhere to this
time frame is fatal to the award, as the provision is mandatory. H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 3 S. C.R.

A 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after the declaration
under Section 6 of the Act dated 28.2.2000 the acquiring body had intimated
to the Land Acquisition Officer vide its communication dated 2.1.2001
proposing deletion of some of the area which was proposed to be acquired.
The original declaration under Section 6 was regarding acquisition of 155.26
B hectares, but thereafter 107.99 hectares was proposed to be deleted. Hence
the final area which was proposed to be acquired was to the extent of 36.8
hectares. Accordingly, a corrigendum to that effect was issued on 25.1.2003,
and hence, it is submitted that the award dated 4.1.2003 was well within time.
We do not agree.

C 9. In our opinion under Section I IA what has to be seen is the date
of last publication of the declaration under Section 6, and not any subsequent
corrigendum to the said declaration. The only circumstance under which the
period between the declaration under Section 6 and the award can be extended
is mentioned in the explanation to Section I IA which states : "In computing
the period of two years referred to in Section 11 A, the period during which
D any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is
stayed by an order of a Court is excluded."
1 -
I 0. There is no mention in Section 11 A that the period after the
publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the publication of any
corrigendum to the said declaration has also to be excluded. We will be
E adding words to the statute if we put such interpretation to Section 11 A, and
it is well settled the Court should not add or delete words in a statute.

11. In view of the above reasons this appeal is allowed. The impugned
award is quashed. The impugned judgment is set aside. There shall be no
F order as to costs.

RP. Appeal Allowed.

\