Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 04-09-2019 in case of petitioner name The State of Maharashtra & Ors vs M/s Moti Ratan Estate & Anr.
| |

Land Acquisition Proceedings Under Section 11A: Supreme Court’s Crucial Ruling

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling concerning the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The case involved landowners who challenged the acquisition of their property on the grounds that the award under Section 11 was not declared within the mandated two-year period. The State of Maharashtra and others, as appellants, contested the High Court’s decision, which had quashed the land acquisition proceedings.

The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a stay granted in one case should extend to all similarly situated landowners, thereby justifying the delay in passing the award.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from the acquisition of land situated in Asarjan, Taluka, and District Nanded. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on March 1, 2012, followed by a notification under Section 6 on February 7, 2013. The landowners, dissatisfied with the acquisition process, filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The High Court ruled that the acquisition had lapsed since the award under Section 11 had not been declared within two years from the Section 6 notification.

Arguments of the Appellants

The State of Maharashtra, represented by Advocate Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, made the following submissions:

  • The delay in declaring the award was due to pending litigation and interim orders that prevented the authorities from proceeding with the acquisition.
  • Since the High Court had granted a stay on possession, it was impossible for the authorities to proceed with the acquisition process.
  • The period during which the stay was operative should be excluded when calculating the two-year limitation under Section 11A.
  • Several Supreme Court rulings had established that a stay in related proceedings justified the extension of statutory deadlines.
  • As the acquisition was for a public project, lapsing of the acquisition proceedings would have serious consequences.

Arguments of the Respondents

The original landowners, represented by Senior Advocate Vinay Navare, countered with the following arguments:

  • There was no stay restraining the authorities from declaring the award; the stay only applied to possession.
  • The authorities had ample time to declare the award but failed to do so within the stipulated two-year period.
  • The exclusion of the period of stay should not apply to cases where no direct restriction was placed on declaring the award.
  • The High Court correctly held that the landowners were entitled to relief under Section 11A, as the acquisition had lapsed.
  • The right to property is a constitutional right, and delays in acquisition proceedings should not deprive landowners of fair treatment.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court extensively analyzed the impact of Section 11A and the judicial precedents governing acquisition proceedings. The Court made the following key observations:

  • When a stay is granted in one case, preventing the authorities from proceeding with an acquisition, it can apply to all similarly placed landowners.
  • The exclusion of time under Section 11A applies where a stay order directly impacts the authorities’ ability to declare an award.
  • Judicial pronouncements had repeatedly emphasized that a delay caused by legal proceedings should not penalize the acquiring authority.
  • The land acquisition process was part of a larger scheme, and a stay in related cases justified the delay in issuing awards for all affected landowners.
  • Equitable treatment was essential in land acquisition matters to ensure that public interest projects were not unfairly stalled.

The Court relied on previous judgments, including Raj Kumar Gandhi v. Chandigarh Administration, which held that a stay in related cases could justify delays in acquisition.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Maharashtra and set aside the High Court’s decision. The Court held:

“Applying the principles of law, and considering the fact that there was a stay granted in related petitions, the period of the stay is to be excluded while computing the two-year period under Section 11A. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse.”

With this ruling, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that judicial delays caused by litigation should not automatically result in the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings. The decision ensures that state authorities retain the ability to complete acquisitions for public projects without being unduly affected by legal challenges.


Petitioner Name: The State of Maharashtra & Ors..
Respondent Name: M/s Moti Ratan Estate & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Nanded, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 04-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The State of Maharas vs Ms Moti Ratan Estat Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts