Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of Maruti Genba Veer and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award dated 19.03.1996 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.19, Satara, in respect of land acquisition for a public purpose. The petitioners contended that the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made on 24.06.1993, but the award was passed on 19.03.1996, which was beyond the two-year period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. The petitioners argued that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the failure to pass the award within the statutory period. The respondents, represented by the State, argued that the period should be computed from the date of the notification under Section 4, not from the Section 6 declaration. The court examined the provisions of Section 11A, which states that the Collector shall make an award within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6. The court found that the declaration under Section 6 was published on 24.06.1993, and the award was made on 19.03.1996, which is clearly beyond two years. The court rejected the state's argument, holding that the language of Section 11A is clear and unambiguous. The court held that the award was passed without jurisdiction as the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned award and allowed the petition. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Failure to Pass Award Within Two Years - The petitioners challenged the award dated 19.03.1996 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, contending that the declaration under Section 6 was made on 24.06.1993, but the award was passed on 19.03.1996, beyond the two-year period prescribed under Section 11A. The court held that the award was passed after the expiry of the statutory period, and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed. The impugned award was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Award - Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Computation of Period - The court noted that the declaration under Section 6 was published on 24.06.1993, and the award was made on 19.03.1996, which is beyond two years. The court rejected the state's argument that the period should be computed from the date of the notification under Section 4, holding that the clear language of Section 11A requires the award to be made within two years from the date of the Section 6 declaration. (Paras 5-8) C) Land Acquisition - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Quashing of Award - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the award as it was passed without jurisdiction due to the lapse of acquisition proceedings. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed due to the failure to pass an award within the statutory period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the impugned Award dated 19.03.1996 bearing No.LAQ/19/SR/362 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer No.19, Satara. The petition was allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Lapse of Acquisition
- Section 11A
- Section 6
- Limitation
- Award
- Declaration
- Compensation
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Article 226
