Supreme Court sets aside judgment, acquisition proceedings lapsed, new proceedings allowed. Contempt petition dismissed.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that the acquisition proceedings lapsed as the Award exceeded the period under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court clarified that respondents could initiate new acquisition proceedings if interested. The contempt petition was dismissed as no intentional violation of the status quo order was found.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Award passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Determination of the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
4. Allegations of contempt for violating the status quo order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Award passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appellants challenged the Award passed by the Collector, arguing that it was made without giving any notice or hearing to the appellants and beyond the statutory period. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the Award was made within the period of limitation as envisaged by Section 11A of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court had erred in its judgment by not considering the correct date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.

2. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act:
The appellants contended that the Award was made beyond the two-year period from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, making the acquisition proceedings null and void. The High Court held that the Award was made within the limitation period by excluding the period during which the proceedings were stayed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the period of two years for making the Award should be computed from the last date of publication as per the prescribed modes of publication under Section 6(2) of the Act.

3. Determination of the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act:
The High Court accepted 13.08.1985 as the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6, based on the Award's reference. However, the Supreme Court found that the correct date of publication was 25.07.1985, as previously accepted by the High Court in earlier writ petitions and admitted by the Meerut Development Authority (MDA) in its grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment was not legal and justified, as it did not align with the statutory provisions and the dicta of the Supreme Court.

4. Allegations of contempt for violating the status quo order:
The appellants filed a contempt petition alleging that the MDA had encroached upon their land despite the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court. The respondents denied the allegations and submitted that they had not disturbed the status quo order. The Supreme Court, after scrutinizing the counter affidavits, found no evidence of willful or intentional violation of the status quo order and discharged the notice of contempt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed as the Award was made beyond the period contemplated in Section 11A of the Act. The Court also clarified that the respondents could initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with the law if they were still interested in acquiring the land of the appellants. The contempt petition was disposed of, and the notice was discharged.

---