Summary
The High Court held land acquisitions lapsed because awards were not made within two years, declining to exclude stays obtained by other owners. The Court held that effective stays concerning parts of the same acquisition scheme could justify withholding further action across the scheme. Both the restraint on declaring awards in connected petitions and the stay of possession required exclusion here. The acquisitions had not lapsed.
Issues
- Whether stays obtained by some owners in a common acquisition scheme extended the award period for other affected lands.
- Whether a stay of possession fell within the statutory exclusion.
Held
- Where acquisition forms one scheme, an effective stay concerning one pocket can inhibit proceedings for other pockets. The authorities may await the judicial decision, and the relevant stay period is excluded in calculating the two-year award period. (¶¶ 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8)
- The explanation to Section 11A is broadly worded and is not limited to orders expressly stopping preparation of an award. A stay of possession can also attract exclusion. (¶¶ 7.5, 7.6, 8)
- The connected stays concerned lands in the same village, under the same notification and for the same project. Later exclusion of certain stayed lands from the award did not remove the benefit of excluding the earlier stay period. With the relevant periods excluded, no lapse occurred. (¶¶ 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 8)
Result
All State appeals were allowed, the High Court judgments quashed and the landowners’ writ petitions dismissed. No costs were ordered.