- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellants are the owners of lands situated in Salem Taluk No. 151, Ayothiapatnam in the district of Salem, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as "the acquired lands"). A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") was issued on 24th of December, 1986 for acquisition of the said lands. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23rd of December, 1987. Two writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 835 and 836 of 1988 were filed questioning the validity and legality of the aforesaid notification and the declaration before the High Court of Madras. In the pending writ petitions, on 11th of February, 1988, the following interim order was passed: Interim stay for four weeks. Notice returnable in four weeks. The aforesaid two writ petitions finally came up for hearing before a learned Judge of the High Court who by an order dated 23rd of August, 2001 rejected the writ petitions and feeling aggrieved, the appeals were filed before the Division Bench which by the impugned order had dismissed the appeals of the appellants. The appellants, feeling aggrieved, had filed two special leave petitions which on grant of leave, were heard in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and after careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Act, we are of the view that these appeals have no merit. The submission of Mr. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, was that having regard to the fact that the interim order of stay was operative only for a period of four weeks from 11th of February, 1988 to 11th of March, 1988, the High Court had fallen into a grave error in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants inasmuch as the award passed on 23rd of August, 1993 was clearly beyond the period of two years from the date of issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 23rd of December, 1987. Mr. Viduthalai, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents contested the submissions advanced by Mr. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. He submitted that the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the writ petitions having regard to the nature of the interim order of stay granted by the High Court in the pending writ petitions and, therefore, it must be held that the question of holding that entire proceedings had lapsed and that the acquired lands must be restored to the appellants could not arise at all. Before we proceed to consider the issue as posed before us, it would be necessary to deal with some of the provisions of the Act. First of such provisions is Section 6 of the Act which deals with intended acquisition. The explanation to Section 6 of the Act says that "In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4(1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded."
(3.) Section 11 of the Act deals with enquiry and award by Collector. It says that On the day so fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land and at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1) and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand.;