Appeal allowed, impugned award quashed due to delay in making award under Land Acquisition Act

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the Renapur Medium Project was quashed. The Court held that the award should have been made within two years from the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of this timeline. The subsequent corrigendum reducing the area to be acquired did not justify the delay in making the award, as only the date of the last publication of the original declaration was relevant under Section 11A. The judgment of the High Court was set aside with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act regarding the timeline for making an award and the impact of subsequent corrigendum on the validity of the award.

Judgment Summary:

(1) The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court regarding the quashing of an award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the Renapur Medium Project. The key issue was whether the award was illegal under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act due to the timeline for making the award.

(2) The appellant argued that the award should have been made by the date of the last declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was 28.2.2000. Section 11A mandates that the award must be made within two years from the publication of the declaration, failing which the acquisition proceedings lapse. The Court agreed with the appellant's interpretation, stating that adherence to this timeline is mandatory.

(3) The respondent contended that a subsequent corrigendum reducing the area to be acquired justified the delay in making the award. However, the Court held that under Section 11A, only the date of the last publication of the declaration under Section 6 is relevant, not any subsequent changes. The Court emphasized that the statute does not provide for excluding the period after the original declaration for subsequent amendments, and adding such interpretation would be impermissible.

(4) Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned award was quashed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---