Exclusion of stay period under land acquisition limitation upheld, keeping Section 6 declarations within time.

The first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as substituted by the 1984 amendment, was construed broadly so that the Explanation requiring exclusion of the period during which proceedings pursuant to a Section 4 notification were stayed by court order applied to all notifications issued between 29 January 1967 and the commencement of the amendment. The Court held that the stay period had to be excluded when computing the time limit for making the Section 6 declaration, because the statutory scheme was intended to prevent court-ordered delay from defeating acquisition proceedings. The argument that a vested right arose on expiry of the earlier three-year period was rejected, and the declarations issued in 1985 and 1986 were held to be within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period during which proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were stayed by court order had to be excluded while computing the time-limit for making declarations under Section 6(1), so as to save the impugned declarations from being barred by limitation.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 6(1), as substituted by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, was held to operate in broad terms. The Explanation, which directs exclusion of the period during which any action or proceeding in pursuance of a Section 4 notification is stayed by a court order, was construed as applying to all notifications issued after 29 January 1967 and before the commencement of the 1984 amendment, not merely to notifications for which the pre-existing limitation period had not already expired. The Court held that the language of the proviso and Explanation, read together, showed a legislative intent to prevent delay caused by court stays from defeating acquisition proceedings. The contention that the petitioners had acquired a vested right on expiry of the earlier three-year period was rejected, and the interpretation urged by the petitioners was held inconsistent with the statutory scheme and object of the amendment.

Conclusion: The period covered by the stay orders was excluded in computing limitation under Section 6(1), and the declarations made in 1985 and 1986 were held to be within time.

---