Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for quashing the land acquisition proceeding initiated by the Collec- tor of the District-Howrah under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the land for the purpose of Howrah Improvement Trust.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the publication of the declaration under Section 6 was made sometime in 1967-68 and the award under Section 11 has been made on 22.9.86. Section 11A was introduced into the Act with effect from 24.9.84. Under the proviso to the said Section 11A an award is required to be made within two years from that date. In this case it, however seems that the award has been made within the period of two years from the date of the introduction of the Section 11 A. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that in this case the award has been made by the Collector under Section 11 without taking any previous approval of the appropriate Government or appropriate authority. He also attracts my attention to the first proviso to Section 11(1) which says that no award shall be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. There is however, a second proviso to the said Section 11(1) which says that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. In view of the provisions of the said.two provisos to Section 11(1). I invited the learned Advocate for the State-respondents, to enlighten me whether before passing the award in this case the Collector obtained the previous approval of the appropriate Government or appropriate authority as the case may be as required by the first proviso, and in the alternative whether the appropriate Government authorised the Collector under the second proviso to the said Section 11(1) to make such award without such approval. The learned Advocate for the State-respondents, however concedes that no previous approval was obtained by the Collector in this case in making the concerned award but at the same time he submits that in this case there is no question of taking any previous approval because the Collector has been authorised to make such award by the State Government without the previous approval of the Government. He in this connection, places before me and also attracts my attention to the Circular No. 1499-L.A. (II) dated 5th March, 1986 and submits that in view of this circular the Collector is authorised to make and is also competent to make award without obtaining any separate prior approval from any other authority. I have gone through the said circular dated 5th March, 1986 and I find that the said circular authorises the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner to sanction the land acquisition estimate totalling upto Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs respectively in each individual case under intimation to the Requiring Department concerned and the Land & Land Reforms Departments subject to the fulfilment of other conditions.
(3.) In my opinion, this circular does not bring the case under the second proviso to Section 11(1). The said circular only authorises the Collector to sanction Land Acquisition estimate totalling upto Rs. 5 lakhs in connection with the acquisition of lands but it does not say that the Collector may make an award under Section 11(1) without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or the appropriate authority. A reading of Section 11(1) will show that an award relates to: (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation to be allowed for the land;(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation. Obviously, mere authorisation to sanction the land acquisition estimate upto certain amount does not cover all the points which are covered by an award and therefore, the said circular dated 5th March, 1986 cannot be deemed or taken to be an authorisation under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 whereby the Collector can make an award without obtaining previous approval of the appropriate authority. The learned Advocate for the petitioners in this connection attracts my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of U.P. v. Rajiv Gupta, in support of his submission that an award made by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate authority is bad-in-law. Since I find that in the present case the award has been made by the Collector without obtaining the previous approval of the appropriate authority and since I further find that the concerned circular No. 1499 L.A. (II) dated 5th March. 1986. cannot be taken to be an authorisation of the Collector in this behalf under the second proviso to Section 11(1), I must hold that the award in this case is bad-in-law and has to be quashed. Again since no valid award has been passed within two years from the date of insertion of Section 11A, the entire land acquisition proceeding also lapses in view of the provisions of Section 11 A.;