Delhi High Court
Lal Singh And Others vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 15 December, 2008
Author: A.K.Sikri
Unreportable
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) No. 2853 of 1993
and
WP (C) No. 3180 of 1993
% Decided on : December 15, 2008
1. WP (C) No. 2853/1993
Lal Singh & Ors. . . . Appellants
through : NEMO
VERSUS
Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. . . . Respondents
through : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
2. WP (C) No. 3180/1993
Ragbir Singh & Anr. . . . Appellants
through : NEMO
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. . . . Respondents
through : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
CORAM :-
THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)
1. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners. We find that the
petitioners had challenged the acquisition of land for which
Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, the „Act‟) were issued on 6.4.1964 and 7.12.1966
respectively by filing WP (C) No. 810/1984. This writ petition was
dismissed on 21.7.1989. Thereafter, the present petition was filed in
the year 1993 submitting that those notifications have lapsed as no
award is made within two years after the introduction of Section 11A
to the Act by way of an amendment in the year 1984. As per this
provision, the award was to be made within two years from the
enforcement of that section, i.e. by 23.9.1986. It is submitted that
even if in the earlier writ petitions stay was granted, the said writ
petition was dismissed on 21.7.1989 and, therefore, it was incumbent
upon the respondents to make the award by 20.7.1991, i.e. within
two years from the date of dismissal of the petition.
2. This submission appears to be attractive in the first blush. However,
notwithstanding the dismissal of the WP (C) No. 810/1984 dismissing
the writ petition as withdrawn, the matter was transferred to the
Supreme Court along with other writ petitions and remained
pending there till November 1996, when ultimately the batch of
appeals and writ petitions, including WP (C) No. 810/1984, were
dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 1.11.1996 with
the lead case known as Murari & Ors. v. Union of India, (1997) 1
SCC 15.
3. Identical issue on these very facts came up for consideration before
this Court in WP (C) No. 13618-622/2004 and WP (C) No. 4676-
80/2005 and dismissing the said writ petitions vide judgment dated
20.10.2008, it was inter alia noted as under :-
"16. Had the facts been rested at that, there could not have
been any problem in allowing the present writ petition.
However, we may point out that when the order dated
21.7.1989 was passed dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn
and vacating the stay orders, neither the petitioners nor the
respondents or their counsel were present. Of course, that
could not be a reason to feign ignorance about the orders. But
it is the error crept in thereafter, which has altered the entire
position and turned the case in favour of the respondents.
17. We have already noted above that the Supreme Court in
M.C. Mehta (supra) passed orders dated 14.12.1994 transferring
certain petitions to the Supreme Court. Significantly, in that
order WP (C) No. 810/1984 is also mentioned and later on
decided along with Murari (supra). It is clear from the above
that all the parties remained under the impression that this writ
petition is still pending. Furthermore, along with WP (C) No.
810/1984, another writ, namely, WP (C) No. 811/1984 was also
filed. The status quo order passed in the said writ petition,
which relates to the same land, was still under operation.
Having regard to such status quo order in another writ
petition, which had bearing on the connected writ petition,
Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Farooq & Anr. v. Union
of India & Ors., 123 (2005) DLT 377 held that the award
passed was within time. We may reproduce following
observation from that judgment :-
"7. The order of the Court had certainly permitted the
Respondents to continue the acquisition proceedings and
announce the award but at the same time it has restrained the
Respondents from dispossessing the Petitioner from the land in
question. The order of the Court had not permitted the
Respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings in all
respects admittedly at the time of the passing of the orders,
declaration under Section 6 had already been made, notices
under Section 9 and 10 have been issued and the Petitioners
have filed his claim. The material steps which were to be taken
for completion of the proceedings were announcement of the
award and taking of possession. According to the Respondents
passing of the award would serve no effective purpose as
neither they can take possession and unless they take possession
of the land, compensation could not be dispersed to the
claimants. The obvious result was non-completion of two
important and final stages of the acquisition proceedings. If
there is impediments arising from an order of the Court in the
way of the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings
in all respects and effectively use the acquired land for the
purpose for which it was acquired, it could hardly be said that
the acquisition proceedings would be liable to be quashed on
the ground of delay and expiration of the specified period
under Section 11(A) of the Act. Order of restraint from
dispossessing the Petitioner from the land in question would not
permit the Respondents to complete the acquisition
proceedings. The order of stay which effectively stalls the
acquisition proceedings particularly at material stages, the
period for which such order continues would be liable to
excluded under the provisions of Explanationn Section 11(A) of
the Act. In fact this question is not mere rest integra and has
been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Ramalinga
Thevar v. State of T.N. and Ors., IV (2000) SLT 513 = III
(2000) CLT 54 (SC) = 2000 Vol.4 SCC 322 where the Court
held as under :-
"6. As per the Explanation the period of exclusion from the
time is the period during which "any action or proceedings" to
be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed. We
have no doubt that one of the actions contemplated pursuant
to the declaration is taking possession of the land, though such
action is a post-award step in normal circumstances and in
emergent circumstances it can as well be a pre-award step.
Nonetheless, taking possession is one of the actions to be
adopted as a follow-up measure pursuant to the declaration
envisaged in Section 6 of the Act. The consequence mentioned
in Section 11-A is a self-operating statutory process and,
thereforee, it can operate only when the conditions specified
therein conjoin together. The consequence would step in only
when there is fusion of all the conditions stipulated therein. If
there is any stay regarding any of the actions to be taken
pursuant to the declaration then the consequence of lapse
would not happen."
8. In view of the above settled position of law we find no
merit in this argument raised on behalf of the Petitioner. The
period from 21st March, 1985 till passing of this judgment
would have to be excluded in terms of the Explanationn to
Section 11(A). The important fact that the respondents were
permitted to make an award but still restraining the
respondents from dispossessing the Petitioner from the site
cannot be construed against the Respondents and would not
vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings."
That writ petition was also transferred to the Supreme
Court and dismissed along with Murari (supra). Thus, if the
award was not given because of the aforesaid reasons and
impression of the Land Acquisition Collector that stay was still
operating, this may not be an incorrect impression of the LAC
in view of the facts mentioned above.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid, these writ petitions are also
dismissed.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
December 15, 2008
nsk
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) No. 3180 of 1993
% Decided on : December 15, 2008
Ragbir Singh & Anr. . . . Appellants
through : NEMO
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. . . . Respondents
through : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
CORAM :-
THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)
For orders, see WP (C) No. 2853/1993.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
December 15, 2008
nsk
