- (1.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing Award No. 2 of 2011-12, dated 24.5.2011 (P-8), on the primary ground that it has been passed after the expiry of statutory period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act'). It is appropriate to mention that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 3.10.2006 (P-1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 1.10.2007 (P-2). The award was announced on 24.5.2011. In the absence of any interim order the award could have been announced on or before 1.10.2009. It has come on record that stay order granting status quo with regard to possession was issued on 29.5.2009 (P-6) in CWP No. 8543 of 2009, which was eventually dismissed on 22.11.2010. In another set of petitions, namely, CWP No.4186 of 2009 and connected petitions, stay of announcement of award was also issued on 26.3.2009 (P-7).
(2.) The case set up by the petitioners is that the award ought to have been announced within two years from the date of issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which in fact was issued on 1.10.2007, and the award having been announced on 24.5.2011 would be beyond the statutory period of two years after excluding the period of stay on the announcement of award i.e. from 29.5.2009 to 22.11.2010. According to them after excluding the period of stay the award should have been announced on or before 24.3.2011.
(3.) In response to the notice of motion having been issued, the respondent State has pointed out that the award is within the period of two years. It has been highlighted that Petitioner No. 9 had filed CWP No. 2648 of 2008, titled as Shiv Shankar Rice and General Mills v. State of Haryana and others. The aforesaid petition came up for hearing on 25.2.2008 and this Court has passed order of status quo with regard to possession and it has also made a reference to another petition, namely, CWP No. 1490 of 2007. It has been maintained that both the said petitions are still pending final disposal of this Court. The respondents have alleged that petitioner No. 9 has suppressed a material fact which was in his personal knowledge that the earlier petition has been tiled.;