LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the land acquisition award was passed within the stipulated time under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the award was approved by the appropriate authority.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Raj Kumar Gandhi vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. with Avtar Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr. and Kailash Wati & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgment Date: 11 May 2018
Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Can a land acquisition award be considered valid if it is passed after the stipulated time, but after excluding periods of court-ordered stay? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning land acquisition for Scheme No. 3 in Chandigarh. The core issue revolved around whether the award was passed within the statutory time limit under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the award was approved by the appropriate authority. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, with Justice Arun Mishra authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case involves multiple appeals against a High Court judgment that dismissed writ petitions challenging land acquisition for Scheme No. 3, Pocket No. 8 in Chandigarh. The land was acquired for the development of a residential-cum-commercial complex, a college building, and a sports stadium. The initial notification for acquisition was issued on 31 January 1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on 29 January 1993. The award was passed on 5 March 2003.
The petitioners argued that the award was passed after the lapse of the statutory period of two years from the declaration under Section 6, even after excluding the period of interim stay granted by the court. They also contended that the award was not approved by the appropriate government authority, but by the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 31 January 1992 | Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued. |
| 29 January 1993 | Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued. |
| 24 February 1993 | Interim stay granted by the court on further land acquisition proceedings in C.W.P No. 2126 of 1993 and other connected matters. |
| 22 September 1995 | Writ petitions challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 dismissed by the Division Bench. |
| 1996 | Another writ petition C.W.P No. 4433 of 1996 was filed, and further proceedings were stayed till further orders. |
| 11 August 1997 | C.W.P No. 4433 of 1996 was allowed, and the notifications under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were quashed. |
| 31 January 2003 | Review application by Chandigarh Administration allowed, and the order dated 11 August 1997 was recalled. |
| 30 September 1998 | Other writ petitions (C.W.P. No.14804 of 1993, C.W.P. No.14892 of 1998, and C.W.P. No.14903 of 1998) were dismissed. |
| 4 August 1998 | Another batch of writ petitions (C.W.P. No.10287 of 1997 and others) were dismissed. |
| 6 February 2003 | Public notice under Section 9 issued for filing objections. |
| 8-9 February 2003 | Public notice published in leading newspapers. |
| 5 March 2003 | Award pronounced. |
| 1 March 2005 | Ex-parte interim stay obtained by mentioning wrong facts. |
| 28 February 2003 | Award approved by the Advisor. |
| 7 December 2015 | Ex-post facto authorization given by the Administrator authorizing the Advisor and validating/approving awards. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court, in its judgment, considered the various periods of stay and concluded that the award had been passed within 701 days from the date of the declaration under Section 6. The High Court followed its earlier decision in *Kailash Wati & Ors. v. Union of India*, which dealt with the same notification and scheme. The High Court also noted that similar notifications under Section 4 and declarations under Section 6 had been issued for Scheme No. 3, which was intended for a common purpose.
The High Court also relied on *Devinder Kumar v. UT Chandigarh*, which held that a stay order makes it impossible to execute the land acquisition scheme, regardless of whether a particular individual obtained the stay. The High Court noted that the file of the award was sent to the government for approval and was approved by the Advisor.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in question is Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which stipulates that an award must be made within two years of the declaration under Section 6. The explanation to Section 11A states that any period during which the proceedings were stayed by a court order shall be excluded from this calculation. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for acquisition of land for public purpose, and Section 6 deals with the declaration of intended acquisition.
Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states:
“11A. 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 under section 6 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation.—In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.”
The Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987, allows the Administrator to delegate powers to other officers, including the Advisor.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the award was in violation of the proviso to Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as it was passed beyond two years of the declaration under Section 6. They contended that the interim stay granted in *Partap Chand v. Union Territory, Chandigarh* (CWP No. 2126 of 1993), which related to Pocket No. 7, should not have been applied to Pocket No. 8, as they were different notifications. The appellants also argued that the High Court had misinterpreted the decisions in *Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai* and *Abhey Ram (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*, by extending stay orders from one notification to another.
Additionally, the appellants submitted that the award was not approved by the appropriate government, i.e., the Administrator, as required by Article 239 of the Constitution of India, but by the Advisor to the Administrator.
| Appellants’ Submissions | Respondents’ Submissions |
|---|---|
| The award was passed beyond the two-year limit stipulated in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. | The award was passed within the stipulated time after excluding the periods of stay granted by the court. |
| The interim stay in *Partap Chand v. Union Territory, Chandigarh* (CWP No. 2126 of 1993) should not apply to Pocket No. 8 as it related to Pocket No. 7. | The stay orders were applicable to the entire Scheme No. 3, which includes both Pocket Nos. 7 and 8. |
| The High Court misinterpreted *Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai* and *Abhey Ram (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* by extending stay orders to different notifications. | The interpretation of the High Court was correct as the stay orders in one case can be extended to other landowners within the same scheme. |
| The award was not approved by the appropriate government, i.e., the Administrator, as required by Article 239 of the Constitution of India. | The award was approved by the Advisor to the Administrator, who was delegated the power to do so, and this was validated by ex-post facto authorization. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the award was passed within the period stipulated under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6, excluding the period of stay.
- Whether the award was approved by the appropriate government authority.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the award was passed within the period stipulated under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6, excluding the period of stay. | Yes | The court held that the various stay orders granted by the High Court with respect to different pockets of Scheme No. 3 were applicable to the entire scheme. The court relied on *Puran Chand Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* and *Devinder Kumar (supra)*, which held that when a stay is granted, it is impossible to execute the scheme. |
| Whether the award was approved by the appropriate government authority. | Yes | The court held that the award was approved by the Advisor to the Administrator, who had the delegated authority to do so. The court also noted the ex-post facto authorization by the Administrator validating the awards. The court also relied on *Gagandeep Kang & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh* where a similar issue was decided. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the court:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| *Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.* (1991) 4 SCC 531 | Supreme Court of India | Followed: The court relied on this case to interpret the explanation to Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stating that the period of stay has to be excluded. |
| *Puran Chand Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*, C.A. Nos.663-664 of 2000 | Supreme Court of India | Followed: The court relied on this case, which held that stay orders in one matter can apply to the entire scheme. |
| *Devinder Kumar v. UT Chandigarh* C.W.P. No.14804 of 1998 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana | Followed: The court relied on this case, which held that a stay order makes it impossible to execute the land acquisition scheme. |
| *Abhey Ram (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* (1997) 5 SCC 421 | Supreme Court of India | Followed: The court relied on this case to interpret the extended meaning of “stay of the action or proceeding”. |
| *Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors.* (2010) 4 SCC 17 | Supreme Court of India | Followed: The court relied on this case to reiterate the effect of interim stay orders. |
| *Government of T.N. & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai* (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 423 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed: The court discussed the object of Section 11A, but distinguished it based on the facts of the case. |
| *Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka & Ors.* (1994) 4 SCC 145 | Supreme Court of India | Followed: The court relied on this case to reiterate that the period of stay has to be excluded. |
| *Gagandeep Kang & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh*, C.W.P. No.17935 of 2014 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana | Followed: The court relied on this case, which upheld the approval of the award by the Advisor. |
| *Surinder Singh Brar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* (2013) 1 SCC 403 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished: The court distinguished this case, which dealt with the sanction for land acquisition and not the approval of the award. |
| *Gurbinder Kaur Brar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.* (2013) 11 SCC 228 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished: The court distinguished this case, which dealt with the sanction for land acquisition and not the approval of the award. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The award was passed beyond the two-year limit stipulated in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. | Rejected. The court held that the award was passed within the stipulated time after excluding the periods of stay granted by the court. |
| The interim stay in *Partap Chand v. Union Territory, Chandigarh* (CWP No. 2126 of 1993) should not apply to Pocket No. 8 as it related to Pocket No. 7. | Rejected. The court held that the stay orders were applicable to the entire Scheme No. 3, which includes both Pocket Nos. 7 and 8. |
| The High Court misinterpreted *Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai* and *Abhey Ram (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* by extending stay orders to different notifications. | Rejected. The court held that the interpretation of the High Court was correct as the stay orders in one case can be extended to other landowners within the same scheme. |
| The award was not approved by the appropriate government, i.e., the Administrator, as required by Article 239 of the Constitution of India. | Rejected. The court held that the award was approved by the Advisor to the Administrator, who was delegated the power to do so, and this was validated by ex-post facto authorization. |
Authorities and their treatment by the Court:
- *Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. [1991 (4) S.C.C. 531]*: The Court followed this authority to interpret the explanation to Section 11A, stating that the period of stay has to be excluded.
- *Puran Chand Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*: The Court followed this authority, which held that stay orders in one matter can apply to the entire scheme.
- *Devinder Kumar v. UT Chandigarh*: The Court followed this authority, which held that a stay order makes it impossible to execute the land acquisition scheme.
- *Abhey Ram (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1997 (5) SCC 421]*: The Court followed this authority to interpret the extended meaning of “stay of the action or proceeding”.
- *Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors. [2010 (4) SCC 17]*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate the effect of interim stay orders.
- *Government of T.N. & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai [1995 Supp 2 SCC 423]*: The Court discussed the object of Section 11A, but distinguished it based on the facts of the case.
- *Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [1994 (4) SCC 145]*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that the period of stay has to be excluded.
- *Gagandeep Kang & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh*: The Court followed this authority, which upheld the approval of the award by the Advisor.
- *Surinder Singh Brar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2013 (1) SCC 403]*: The Court distinguished this case, which dealt with the sanction for land acquisition and not the approval of the award.
- *Gurbinder Kaur Brar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2013 (11) SCC 228]*: The Court distinguished this case, which dealt with the sanction for land acquisition and not the approval of the award.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court focused on the interpretation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the explanation provided therein. The Court emphasized that the intent of the law was to exclude the time during which the proceedings were stayed by a court order. The Court also considered the fact that the land acquisition was for a single scheme (Scheme No. 3) and hence, stay orders in one matter would apply to the entire scheme. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the Advisor was delegated the power to approve the award and this was validated by ex-post facto authorization.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Statutory Compliance (Section 11A interpretation) | 40% |
| Unified Scheme (Scheme No. 3) | 30% |
| Delegated Authority (Advisor’s approval) | 20% |
| Finality of Previous Decisions | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of legal provisions and the factual context of the case. The court’s analysis of Section 11A and its explanation, along with the decisions in *Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya*, *Abhey Ram*, and *Om Prakash*, were crucial in determining that the time during which stay orders were in effect should be excluded. The court also relied on the decisions in *Puran Chand Gupta* and *Devinder Kumar* to conclude that the various stay orders were applicable to the entire Scheme No. 3.
The court rejected the argument that the stay orders should be limited to the specific pockets of land for which they were granted, emphasizing that the land acquisition was for a unified scheme. The court also rejected the argument that the award was not approved by the appropriate authority, noting that the Advisor had the delegated authority to do so and that the Administrator had provided ex-post facto authorization.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from *Abhey Ram (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*:
“The words “stay of the action or proceeding” have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the orders passed by this Court would be an inhibitive action on the part of the authorities to proceed further.”
The court also quoted the following from *Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors.*:
“Thus, in other words, the interim order of stay granted in one of the matters of the landowners would put complete restraint on the respondents to have proceeded further to issue notification under Section 6 of the Act.”
The court further quoted the following from *Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat & Anr.*
“The said Explanation is in the widest possible terms and, in our opinion, there is no warrant for limiting the action or proceeding referred to in the Explanation to actions or proceedings preceding the making of the award under Section 11 of the said Act.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- The period during which land acquisition proceedings are stayed by a court order is excluded from the calculation of the two-year limit for passing an award under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Stay orders related to a unified scheme apply to the entire scheme, not just the specific land parcels for which the stay was granted.
- The Administrator can delegate the power to approve land acquisition awards to the Advisor, and such delegation can be validated through ex-post facto authorization.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when land acquisition is for a unified scheme, the stay orders granted in one matter would be applicable to the entire scheme, and the period of stay has to be excluded while calculating the time limit for passing an award under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court upheld the interpretation of the explanation to Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as laid down in the previous authorities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the land acquisition award was passed within the stipulated time under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after excluding the periods of stay granted by the court. The Court also held that the award was validly approved by the Advisor to the Administrator, who had the delegated authority to do so. The Court emphasized that stay orders related to a unified scheme apply to the entire scheme, and the time during which the stay orders were in effect must be excluded from the calculation of the two-year limit.