Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MOHAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided
13 March 2007
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 936 · 2007 INSC 282
Also cited as
  • (2007) 9 SCC 431 (5 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2007 SC 2625 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 937, margin B

2

This appeal has beeq filed against the impugned judgment Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 12.4.2005 in Writ No.455 of2004.

p. 937, margin B

3

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

p. 937, margin C

4

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 4.2.2003 published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Renapur Medium Project at village Talegaon (Ghat). The High Court had dismissed the writ petition and hence this appeal.

p. 937, margin C

5

The short point before us is whether the award was illegal of Section I IA of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to Act").

p. 937, margin D

6

The date of last publication of the notification under Section Act was I 8.2.1999 (in Gazette). The last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was 28.2.2000 whereas the award was published 4.2.2003. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the award to have been published on or before 28.2.2000 which was the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel has invited our attention to Section I IA of the Act which states : "I IA. The collector shall make an award under Section I I a period of two years from the publication of the declaration no award is made witbin that period, the entire proceedings acquisition of the land shall lapse."

p. 937, margin E

7

In our opinion the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is clearly correct in view of the clear provision of Section I IA of the view of Section I I A an award has to be made within two years from of publication of the declaration under Section 6. Failure to adhere time frame is fatal to the award, as the provision is mandatory.

p. 937, margin G

8

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 28.2.2000 the acquiring body had intimated to the Land Acquisition Officer vide its communication dated 2.1.2001 proposing deletion of some of the area which was proposed to be acquired. The original declaration under Section 6 was regarding acquisition of 155.26 hectares, but thereafter 107.99 hectares was proposed to be deleted. Hence the final area which was proposed to be acquired was to the extent of 36.8 hectares. Accordingly, a corrigendum to that effect was issued on 25.1.2003, and hence, it is submitted that the award dated 4.1.2003 was well within time. We do not agree.

p. 938

9

In our opinion under Section I IA what has to be seen is the date of last publication of the declaration under Section 6, and not any subsequent corrigendum to the said declaration. The only circumstance under which the period between the declaration under Section 6 and the award can be extended is mentioned in the explanation to Section I IA which states : "In computing the period of two years referred to in Section 11 A, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court is excluded." 1 -

p. 938, margin C

10

There is no mention in Section 11 A that the period after the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the publication of any corrigendum to the said declaration has also to be excluded. We will be adding words to the statute if we put such interpretation to Section 11 A, and it is well settled the Court should not add or delete words in a statute.

p. 938, margin D

11

In view of the above reasons this appeal is allowed. The impugned award is quashed. The impugned judgment is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. RP. Appeal Allowed.

p. 938, margin E