2015 (8) TMI 1107 - SC - Indian Laws

Court invalidates Collector's Award exceeding time limit under Land Acquisition Act, clarifies exclusion rule

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the Award made by the Collector was invalid as it exceeded the two-year limit prescribed ... Delay in Quantification of compensation granted - Acquisition of land - HC observed that LAO/Collector, Land Acquisition having made the Award beyond the period of two years stipulated in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities have lapsed. - Held that:- Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the Legislature. Section 11-A in terms does not provide for exclusion of the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the Judgment or order by which the stay order was either granted or vacated. Section 12 of the Limitation Act has no application to the making of an Award under the Land Acquisition Act. In the absence of any enabling provision either in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act or in the Limitation Act, there is no room for borrowing the principles underlying Section 12 of the Limitation Act for computing the period or determining the validity of an Award by reference to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 28A which provides for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the Award of the Court, the aggrieved party is entitled to move a written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the Award of the Court or the Collector requiring him to determine the amount of compensation payable to him on the basis of the amount Awarded by the Court. Proviso to Section 28A specifically excludes the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the Award while computing the period of three months within which the application shall be made to the Collector. There is in the case at hand no ambiguity nor do we see any apparent omission in Section 11-A to justify application of the doctrine of casus omissus and by that route re-write 11-A providing for exclusion of time taken for obtaining a copy of the order which exclusion is not currently provided by the said provision. The omission of a provision under Section 11-A analogous to the proviso under Section 28A is obviously not unintended or inadvertent which is the very essence of the doctrine of casus omissus. - High Court was in the above circumstances perfectly justified in holding that the Award made by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer was non est and that the acquisition proceedings had elapsed by reason of a breach of Section 11-A of the Act. We, however, make it clear that the declaration granted by the High Court and proceedings initiated by the Collector shall be deemed to have elapsed only qua the writ petitioners-respondents herein. - Decided against appellant. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Award made by the LAO/Collector under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.2. Interpretation of the period of limitation for making an Award under Section 11-A.3. Applicability of the doctrine of casus omissus to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Award made by the LAO/Collector under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.The primary issue was whether the Award made by the LAO/Collector was valid, given that it was made beyond the two-year period stipulated in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court had dismissed the Writ Appeal and the review petition filed by the appellant, holding that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the delay in making the Award.2. Interpretation of the period of limitation for making an Award under Section 11-A.Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act mandates that the Award must be made within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6. In this case, the declaration was published on 2nd March 1994, and the Award was made on 5th November 1999, clearly beyond the two-year period. The appellant argued that the period during which the High Court stayed the proceedings should be excluded. The stay was in effect from 6th December 1995 to 28th July 1999, totaling 3 years, 7 months, and 22 days. Even after excluding this period, the Award was still beyond the prescribed time limit.3. Applicability of the doctrine of casus omissus to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.The appellant contended that the time taken to obtain a copy of the order vacating the stay should also be excluded, citing the decision in N. Narasimhaiah and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. However, this view was overruled by a Constitution Bench in Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors., which was applied prospectively. The Court in R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. clarified that the period of two years under Section 11-A starts from the date the stay is vacated, not from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector.The Supreme Court further emphasized that Section 11-A does not provide for exclusion of the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order vacating the stay. The doctrine of casus omissus cannot be applied to read such a provision into Section 11-A. The Court noted that Parliament explicitly provided for such exclusions in other sections, like Section 28A, but not in Section 11-A, indicating a deliberate legislative choice.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, concluding that the Award made by the Collector was non est, and the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the breach of Section 11-A. The declaration and proceedings initiated by the Collector were deemed to have lapsed only concerning the writ petitioners-respondents. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.