In Brief
The State of Maharashtra acquired land in village Asarjan, Nanded, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. When landholders challenged the acquisition in writ petitions, the High Court granted interim stays of possession and against declaring awards. One landholder argued that since the award was not declared within two years of the Section 6 declaration, the acquisition lapsed. The High Court accepted this and quashed the entire acquisition, applying Section 11A. The Supreme Court held that where the acquisition scheme is one and stays are granted for related lands under the same notification, such stays must be excluded from the two-year computation period. Therefore, the acquisition did not lapse, and the High Court's judgment was reversed.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[{"raw_citation":"(1991) 3 SCC 261","case_name":"G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. State of Karnataka","cited_year":"1991","paragraph":"5.4, 7.3","treatment":"relied","treatment_by":"this_court"},{"raw_citation":"(1991) 4 SCC 531","case_name":"Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat","cited_year":"1991","paragraph":"5.4, 7.3, 7.3","treatment":"relied","treatment_by":"this_court"},{"raw_citation":"(1993) 2 SCC 662","case_name":"Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan","cited_year":"1993","paragraph":"5.4, 7.3","treatment":"relied","treatment_by":"this_court"},{"raw_citation":"(1993) 3 SCC 634","case_name":"Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra","cited_year":"1993","paragraph":"5.4, 7.3","treatment":"relied","treatment_by":"this_court"},{"raw_citation":"(1994) 4 SCC 145","case_name":"Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka","cited_year":"1994","paragraph":"5.4, 7.3, 7.3","treatment":"relied","treatment_by":"this_court"},{"raw_citation":"(1997) 5 SCC 421","case_name":"Abhey Ram v. Union of India","cited_year":"1997","paragraph":"5.4, 7.3","treatment":"relied","treatment_by":"this_court"},{"raw_citation":"(2010) 4 SCC 17","case_name":"Om Prakash v. Union of India","cited_year":"2010","paragraph":"5.4, 7.3, 7.3","treatment":"relied","treatment_by":"this_court"},{"raw_citation":"(2018) 7 SCC 763","case_name":"Raj Kumar Gandhi v. Chandigarh Administration and others","cited_year":"2018","paragraph":"5.4, 7.3, 7.3, 7.4, 6.4","treatment":"followed","treatment_by":"this_court","treatment_quote":"In the recent decision in the case of Raj Kumar Gandhi (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider the applicability of Section 11A of the Act. After considering catena of decisions of this Court on the applicability of Section 11A of the Act, this Court observed and held that where scheme of the acquisition is one, interim stay granted in respect of one pocket of land would operate even in respect of other pockets of land and therefore the authorities were justified in not proceeding with the acquisition proceedings and consequently the acquisition proceedings would not lapse."},{"raw_citation":"1988 SCC OnLine Del 367 : (1989) 37 DLT 150","case_name":"B.R. Gupta v. Union of India","cited_year":"1988","paragraph":"7.3","treatment":"referred","treatment_by":"this_court"},{"raw_citation":"(1986) 1 Apex Dec 6 (SC)","case_name":"Roshanara Begum v. Union of India","cited_year":"1986","paragraph":"7.3","treatment":"referred","treatment_by":"this_court"}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.