Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition proceedings, when deemed to have lapsed – Land of the respondents notified u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as required for the planned development of Delhi vide notification dated 25.11.1980 – Declaration u/s. 6 published and the award passed – Initiation of acquisition process vide notifications dated 5.11.1980 and 25.11.1980 – Challenge to, in various writ petitions – High Court granted interim order of stay of dispossession – Numerous litigation continued – Meanwhile, 2013 Act came into force – Application filed in the pending writ petition – Allowed by the High Court holding that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – On appeal, held : Since the entire notification was quashed by the High Court in Gurdip Singh and Balbir Singh, thus, the State could not take possession on the basis of quashed notification – However, before the judgments of this Court were pronounced in the year 1999 or 2000, the land owner had obtained stay of dispossession – Thus, it is not a stay of dispossession pending notification u/s. 6 or award u/s. 11-A but the acquisition of the entire land which came to be settled by this Court – Thus, the State could not take possession on the basis of a notification u/s. 6 leading to the award in 1987 – There was no stay but the acquisition itself stood quashed – When the 2013 Act came into force on 01.01.2014, the five years period had not lapsed which was stay free or free from setting aside of the acquisition – Appellant was prevented by the interim orders in a number of writ petitions filed to take possession – Thus, prior to the commencement of 2013 Act, there was no stay free period of 5 years which could lead to a declaration that the proceedings stand lapsed – Notifications u/s. 6 quashed on 15.5.1989 and 17.12.1996 were set aside in Gurdip Singh Uban-I and II’s case but before that, there was an order of stay of ORS.
dispossession granted in favour of the land owner on 27.9.1999 – Thus, on account of setting aside of notification u/s. 6, the State could not take possession in view of the orders passed by the High Court – Thus, order passed by High Court is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the writ petition filed by the land owners, there was an interim order of stay granted on 9.7.1999, even before Gurdip Singh Uban-I was decided on 20.8.1999. The notifications under Section 6 of the Act which were quashed became effective only after the order of this Court in Gurdip Singh Uban-I and II. The land owner strangely made no mention of the judgment delivered on 22.4.1997 in Abhey Ram. The order of stay of dispossession in the writ petition filed by the land owner continued when the 2013 Act came into force. The land which was the subject matter of challenge in Gurdip Singh Uban was also at Village Chattarpur, even before the Award was announced. There was an interim order of stay of dispossession on 28.4.1986 in respect of land situated in the village Chattarpur which continued till such time the notification under Section 6 of the Act was quashed relying upon Balbir Singh decided on 15.05.1989 and Sudan Singh. This order was set aside by this Court on 20.8.1999 in Gurdip Singh Uban I. The land owner had got stay in their writ petition on 9.7.1999. Thus, there was no stay free period of 5 years before coming into force of the 2013 Act. [Para 21][83B-E]
1.2. It is to be noted that since the entire notification was quashed by the High Court in Gurdip Singh and Balbir Singh, therefore, the State could not take possession on the basis of quashed notification. But before the judgments of this Court were pronounced in the year 1999 or 2000, the land owner had obtained stay of dispossession. Therefore, it is not a stay of dispossession pending notification under Section 6 or award under Section 11A but the acquisition of the entire land which came to be settled by this Court. Thus, the State could not take possession on the basis of a notification under Section 6 leading to the award on 05.06.1987. The argument that there was no stay from the date of the award till the stay was granted in favour of the land owner is hence partly correct as there was no stay but the acquisition itself stood quashed. Therefore, when the 2013 Act came into force on 01.01.2014, the five years had not lapsed which was stay free or free from setting aside of the acquisition. [Para 22][83-FH]
1.3. Pertinent to note, though the High Court in Balak RamII had not quashed the notification under Section 6 of the Act, but in some of the subsequent judgments such as in Balbir Singh, the High Court held that the notification stands quashed and the land stood reverted back to the land owners. Therefore, an option was given to the land owners to refund the compensation. Such judgment of Balbir Singh was affirmed by this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh. Delhi High Court in Gurdip Singh Uban etc. relied upon Sudan Singh to hold that the notification under Section 6 of the Act stands quashed. However, Sudan Singh was specifically found to be laying down not good law in Abhey Ram, Gurdip Singh Uban-I and Gurdip Singh UbanII. There was a stay in the writ petition filed by the land owners themselves which continued to operate till the 2013 Act came into force. Therefore, it was the order of the High Court itself which prevented the appellant to take possession. However, such position got clarified only after the judgment in Gurdip Singh Uban-I, later clarified in Gurdip Singh Uban-II, but in the meantime, there was an interim order granted in favour of the land owners.[Para 26][87-A-D]
1.4. The period of 5 years had not lapsed on 1.1.2014 which could lead to lapsing of the acquisition proceedings. The appellant was prevented by the interim orders in a number of writ petitions filed to take possession. Therefore, prior to the commencement of 2013 Act, there was no stay free period of 5 years which could lead to a declaration that the proceedings stand lapsed. Still further, the notifications under Section 6 of the Act quashed on 15.5.1989 and 17.12.1996 were set aside in Gurdip Singh UbanI and II but before that, there was an order of stay of dispossession granted in favour of the land owner on 27.9.1999. Therefore, on account of setting aside of notification under Section 6 of the Act, the State could not take possession in view of the orders passed by the High Court. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Para 28, 29][88-G-H; 89-A-B]
ORS.
Munni Lal v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1983 SCC OnLine Del 321; Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India 1987 SCC OnLine Del 227 : AIR 1987 Del 239; Shri B. R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 1988 SCC OnLine Del
367 : (1989) 37 DLT 150 (DB); Abhey Ram v. Union of India C.W.P. No. 2657/85; Abhey Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 421 : [1997] 3 SCR 931; Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 430; Balbir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. 1989 SCC OnLine Del 211 : (1989) 39 DLT 233 (DB); Brig. Gurdip Singh Uban v. Union of India 1996 SCC OnLine Del 879; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 44 : [1999]
1 Suppl. SCR 650; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 296 : [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496; Chatro Devi v. Union of India 2005 SCC Online Delhi 279; Union of India v. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC
564 : [2014] 8 SCR 751; Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020]
3 SCR 1; Om Prakash v. Union of India and Others (2010) 4 SCC 17 : [2010] 2 SCR 447; Manohar Lal Atree v. Union of India & Ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 2364 of 1990; Smt. Sheila Khatri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 1786 of 1998; Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022; Mrs. Verinder Kaur v. Government of NCT of Delhi WP (C) No. 589 of 2018; Delhi Development Authority v. Rajan Sood Civil Appeal No. 1927 of 2022; Delhi Development Authority v. Bhim Sain Goel & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 2022 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.