IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:10..12..2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM WRIT APPEAL NOS. 1109/2009 & 1909 TO 1913 OF 2009, 265 TO 268, 214 TO 218 OF 2010, AND CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS W.A.No.1109 of 2009 B.Gurubackiam … Appellant/Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 3. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) – IV, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Nandanam, Chennai –600 035. 4. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Schemes, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 5. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep. by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035 (R-5 impleaded as per order passed in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.A.No.1109/2009 … Respondents dated 10.12.2010) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.5033 of 1998 dated 10.12.2008 on the file of this Court. WP.No.5033/1998 : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent relating to award No.1/97, dated 31.10.1997 and quash the said award relating to the respective appellants lands in Survey Nos.395 part and 398 part (in all 0.95 acres) in Nerkundram Village, Chinmaya Nagar, Chengalpet District as acquisition proceedings having lapsed as per Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. W.A.No.1909 to 1913 of 2009 A.Muthulingam … Appellant in W.A.No.1909 of 2009/Petitioner A.Pasupathy … Appellant in W.A.No.1910 of 2009/Petitioner K.Annamalai … Appellant in W.A.No.1911 of 2009/Petitioner K.Malathy … Appellant in W.A.No.1912 of 2009/Petitioner K.Balsikhamani .. Appellant in W.A.No.1913 of 2009/Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 3. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) – IV, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Nandanam, Chennai –600 035. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Schemes, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 5. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep. by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035 (R-5 impleaded as per order passed in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.A.No.1909 to 1913/2009 … Respondents in dated 10.12.2010 all the appeals. Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.Nos.5022, 5024, 5027, 5028, 5034 of 1998 dated 10.12.2008 on the file of this Court. W.P.No.5022,5024, 5027, 5028, 5034/1998 : These W.Ps.filed U/Art.226 of constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent relating to Award No.1/97 dated 31.10.1997 and quash the said award relating to the respective appellatn's lands in S.Nos.389 part and 394 part measuring an extent of 33 cents and 49 cents respectively (W.P.No.5022/98) S.Nos.388 part, 392 part and 401 part (in all 1.44 acres) (W.P.No.5024/98) S.Nos.391 part and 400 part (98 cents) (W.P.5027/98) S.Nos.389 part, 394 part, 399 part (1 acre 43 cents) (W.P.No.5028/98) &.S.No.390 part (49 cents) (W.P.No.5034/98) respectively in Nerkundram Village, Chinmaya Nagar, Chengalpet District. W.A.Nos. 265 to 268 of 2010 M.K.Ayyanar .. Appellant in W.A.No.265/2010/Petitioner K.Periyasamy … Appellant in W.A.No.266/2010/Petitioner K.Senthilkumar … Appellant in W.A.No.267/2010/Petitioner K.Pannerselvam … Appellant in W.A.No.268/2010/Petitioner vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 3. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) – IV, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Nandanam, Chennai –600 035. 4. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Schemes, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 5. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep. by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035 (R-5 impleaded as per order dt.24.2.2010 made in W.A.No.265 to 268/2010) … Respondents in all the appeals. Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.Nos.5020, 5021, 5029 & 5030 of 1998 dated 10.12.2008 on the file of this Court. WP.Nos.5020, 5021, 5029 & 5030/1998 : These WPs. filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent relating to award No.1/97, dated 31.10.1997 and quash the said award relating to the respective appellants lands in S.Nos.388 part and 389 part (33 cents) (WP.No.5020/1998) S.Nos.390 and 400 part (96 cents) (WP.No.5021/98) S.No.400 part (24 cents) (WP.No.5029/98) S.No.389 part (33 cents) (WP.No.5030/1998) respectively in Nerkundram Village, Chinmaya Nagar, Chengalpet District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.A.Nos 214 to 218 of 2010. Mrs. Thenmozhi … Appellant in W.A.No.214/2010/Petitioner Dr.Sudha …Appellant in W.A.No.215/2010/Petitioner G.Sivagurunathan …Appellant in W.A.No.216/2010/Petitioner A.G.Kadarkarai … Appellant in W.A.No.217/2010/Petitioner Mrs.M.Gnanadeepam … Appellant in W.A.No.218/2010/Petitioner vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 3. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) – IV, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Nandanam, Chennai –600 035. 4. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Schemes, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 5. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep. by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035 (R-5 impleaded as per order passed in in W.A.Nos.214 to 218/2010 dated 12.02.2010) … Respondents in all the appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.Nos.5031, 5032, 5035, 5037 & 5038 of 1998 dated 10.12.2008 on the file of this Court. W.P.NOs.5031, 5032, 5035,5037 & 5038/98:- These W.Ps. filed U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent velating to award NO.1/97 dated 31.10.1997 and quash the said award relating to the respective appellant's lands in S.No.401(part) (49 cents) (W.P.No.5031/98) S.NO.395 part (10 cents) (W.P.No.5032/98) S.No.399 part (49 cents) (W.P.No.5035/98) S.No.391 part (49 cents) (W.P.5037/98) S.No.394 part (49 cents) (W.P.No.5038/98) respectively in Nerkundram Village, Chinmaya Nagar, Chengalpet District. For Appellants ::: Mr.N.Jothi, for Mr.S.Jayakumar, Mr.Charles Premkumar Mr.G.Sridhar Mr.K.Ravichandran For Respondents ::: Mr.P.Wilson, Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.A.Vijayakumar (TNHB) Mr.Raja Kalifulla, Government Pleader Assisted by Ms.M.Sneha, Govt. Advocate J U D G M E N T The Hon’ble Chief Justice and T.S.Sivagnanam, J. These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 10th December, 2008 passed in a batch of writ petitions whereby the learned single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions holding that the impugned award challenged in the writ petitions are not hit by the proviso to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appellants-writ petitioners filed the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent relating to Award No.1/97, dated 31.10.1997 and quash the said award relating to the respective appellants’ lands in Survey Nos. 395 part and 398 part ( in all 0.95 acres) (W.P.No. 5033 of 1998); S.Nos. 388 Part and 389 part (33 cents) (W.P.No.5020 of 1998; S.Nos. 390 part and 400 part (96 cents) (W.P.No.5021 of 1998); S.No.400 part (24 cents) (W.P.No.5029 of 1998); S.No.389 part (33 cents) (W.P.No.5030 of 1998); S.No.401 part (49 cents) (W.P.No.5031 of 1998); S.No.395 part (10 cents) W.P.No.5032 of 1998); S.No.399 part (49 cents) W.P.No.5035 of 1998); S.No.391 part (49 cents) W.P.No.5037 of 1998; S.No.394 part (49 cents) (W.P.No. 5038 of 1998); S.Nos.389 part and 394 part measuring an extent of 33 cents and 49 cents respectively (W.P.No.5022 of 1998); S.Nos. 388 part, 392 part and 401 part (in all 1.44 acres) (W.P.No.5024 of 1998); S.Nos. 391 part and 400 part (98 cents) (W.P.No.5027 of 1998); S.Nos. 389 part, 394 part, 399 part (1 acre 43 cents) (W.P.No.5028 of 1998) & S.No.390 part (49 cents) (W.P.No.5034 of 1998). 4. It appears that these batch of writ petitions were filed by the subsequent purchasers in respect of the lands in various survey numbers challenging the said award No.1/97 claiming to be in possession of the lands said to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It reveals from the record that those writ petitions were admitted on 17.4.1998, and interim orders were passed. However, those writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.01.2002. Thereafter, on applications being filed by the petitioners-appellants for restoration of the writ petitions, the same were restored to file by order dated 24.3.2007 and thereafter were heard on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant, are that the petitioners-appellants purchased the lands from the original owners namely, P.M.Sundaram and four others some time in the year 1995. It further reveals that before the appellants purchased the lands in the year 1995, Section 4(1) notification was published on 11.6.1975 and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held. In the said enquiry, the vendors of the appellants filed objections, which were ultimately rejected and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 9.6.1978, as also in the year 1980. 6. The writ petitioners-appellants mainly challenged the award before the learned single Judge on the ground of delay in passing the award. It was contended that since the award was not made within two years from the date of declaration, the acquisition proceedings lapsed, and therefore, the award is non-est in law. 7. The learned single Judge in paragraph-9 of the judgment has mentioned the relevant dates and chronology of events, which is reproduced herein below: - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Date Particulars 1. 11.06.1975 Section 4(1) notification in Gazette (G.R.Rt.No.124, Housing, dated 08.05.1975) 2. 19.08.1975 27.08.1975 Section 5-A Enquiry 3. 06.09.1975 Objections by the land owners communicated to the requisitioning body (TNHB) 4. 31.03.1977 TNHB requests to overrule the objections. Sl.No. Date Particulars 5. 24.,05.1977 Remarks communicated to the land owners. 6. 07.06.1978 Draft declaration under Section 6 approved by the Government (G.O.Ms.No.993, Housing) 7. 09.06.1978 Published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. 8. 25.09.1978 Draft Rates approved by the Government (Lr.No.43637/A2/78-1 (H & UD) 9. 25.10.1978 Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Publication. 10. 11.06.1980 Draft amendment to draft declaration under Section 6 approved by Government Letter No.18621/A2/80. 11. 11.06.1980 Published in T.N.Government Gazette. 12. 03.04.1981 Interim stay of dispossession alone in WMP No.2557 of 1981 in W.P.No.1807 of 1981 obtained by the original land owners. 13. 15.02.1983 Government issues directions to proceed and complete the acquisition (G.O.No.294, H & UD Dept). 14. 19.02.1991 W.P.No.1807 of 1981 dismissed for want of prosecution. 15. 25.08.1981 WMP No.15140 of 1991 restoration petition dismissed. 16. 17.09.1991 Revision Application No.21 of 1991 allowed. WP No.1807 of 1991 restored to file. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17. 29.10.1991 W.P.No.1807 of 1981 allowed by Division Bench. Section 4(1) notification quashed. 18. 10.11.1995 Civil Appeal No.10190 of 1995 allowed by Supreme Court. Section 4 (1) Notification stood restored. Sl.No. Date Particulars 19. 1995 Petitioners purchase their lands from one Soundarajan. Power Agent of original land owners. 20. Notice under Section 9(3) and 10 to subsequent purchasers. They didn’t attend the Award Enquiry. 21. 16.04.1997 17.04.1997 21.04.1997 Award Enquiry 22. 31.10.1997 Award passed (impugned in this batch) 8. After taking into consideration, the interim order passed in the earlier writ petitions and also the final order passed by the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge held that the impugned award is not hit by the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act. Consequently, all the writ petitions were dismissed. Hence, these appeals. 9. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in all the appeals assailed the impugned judgment as being illegal, contrary to law applicable and is wholly without jurisdiction. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant rests on Section 11-A of the Act. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the relevant dates and submitted that in any view of the matter, the award was not passed within the statutory period of limitation of two years from the date of declaration. Learned counsel submitted that even assuming that the interim stay of dispossession was passed in the earlier writ petitions, the said interim order ceased to have any effect after dismissal of the writ petitions for non-prosecution. The writ petitions were restored to file after about 9 months and 20 days, which period cannot be excluded while computing the period of two years by taking benefit of the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 4(1) notification was ultimately quashed by a Division Bench of this Court, and the appeal filed by the respondents was finally allowed on 10.11.1995 and the notification under Section 4(1) stood restored. Admittedly, nothing was done by the respondents in furtherance of the preparation of the award, which was passed only on 31.10.1997 i.e., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ much after the expiry of two years from the date of publication of the declaration. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Khullar vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (5) SCC 231, Lok Sewa Shikshan Mandal vs. A.R.Mundhada Charitable Trust reported in 2007 (9) SCC 779, Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2007 (3) SCC 470 and Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2002 (3) SCC 533. 10. On the other hand, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General firstly submitted that by interim order dated 3.4.1981 passed in earlier W.P. No.1807/1981, dispossession alone was not stayed, but the entire proceedings has been stayed, and therefore, there was no question of proceeding in preparation of the award. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the writ petitions were filed after one year from the date of the award by the appellants. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that right from the date of the interim order passed by the writ court till the civil appeal was finally allowed by the Supreme Court, the respondents were restrained from proceeding with the preparation of the award and therefore, this period cannot be counted, in view of the proviso and explanation to Section 11-A of the Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Padma Sundara Rao (supra), Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. .vs. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors. reported in 2000 (2) SCC 48 and Bailamma vs. Poornaprajna House Building Coop. Society reported in 2006 (2) SCC 416. Learned Additional Advocate General lastly contended that the period from the date when the interim order was passed and the date when the civil appeal was allowed was the eclipse period, when the respondents were prevented from taking any further steps in the preparation of the award. After the civil appeal was allowed, the respondents proceeded with the preparation of the award and the same was passed well within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Hence, the award is not hit by the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act. 11. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, we would like to discuss the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 12. Section 4 of the Act confers power to the appropriate Government to acquire the land, which is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose. For that, the appropriate Government shall publish a notification to that effect in the official gazette and shall also publish in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 further confers power to the Government and its officers to enter upon and suvey any lands in such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ locality and to do such act, which is permissible under the said proviso. 13. Section 5-A of the Act lays down the procedure with regard to hearing of objections that may be filed by the person interested in the said land notified under Section 4 of the Act. Such objection shall be given to the Collector in writing and the Collector shall, after giving an opportunity of hearing to those interested persons, and after making such further enquiry, make a report in respect of the land, which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. It is only after compliance of Section 5-A of the Act, the declaration shall be made under Section 6 of the Act to that effect, which shall be published in the official gazette. Section 7 of the Act contemplates about the order of acquisition, according to which the appropriate Government after publishing declaration under Section 6 direct the Collector to take order for the acquisition of the land. 14. Section 11-A of the Act was inserted in the Land Acquisition Act by Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984). Section 11-A reads as under: - “Period within which an award shall be made: - The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse; Provided that in case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation: In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, 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 shall be excluded.” 15. As stated above, the provision of Section 11-A has been inserted by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Act 68 of 1984). By this provision, the time limit of two years has been fixed from the date of Declaration u/s 6 of the Act for passing the award. If no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. The proviso to this section clarify that in case where Declaration has been published before the commencement of this Amendment Act, in such circumstances, the award https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. The explanation to this Section is relevant for the instant case, which provides that in computing the period of two years referred to u/s 11-A, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance to the said Declaration is stayed by an order of a Court, then that period shall be excluded while computing the period of two years for the purpose of passing an award. 16. In the instant case, we find that notification u/s 4 (1) of the Act was published on 11.6.1975 and after enquiry u/s 5-A, draft Declaration u/s 6 was published on 11.6.1980. In the year 1981, the original owners filed writ petition, being W.P. No.1807/1981 challenging the entire acquisition proceeding and the notification for the acquisition of land of Nerkundram Village. In the said writ petition, the original owners obtained interim order of stay on 3.4.1981. The interim order was passed in the following terms :- “Order : This petition coming on for orders on perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No.1807 of 1981 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.C.S.Prakasa, the Advocate for the petitioner it is ordered as follows :- 1. That notice do issue to the respondents herein to show cause why this petition should not complied with; and 2. That all further proceedings by the respondents herein pursuant to the Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the petitioner’s lands bearing survey Nos.375/2, 378, 379, 380, 381/1, 381/2, 382 to 408 of a total extent of about 34 acres, situate in Nerkundram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chinglepet District, and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 11.6.1975, be and are hereby stayed pending further orders on this petition.” 17. The aforesaid W.P. No.1807/1981 filed by the original owners was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.2.1991. However, ultimately, in a review application No.2/91, this Court, by order dated 17.9.91, the order of dismissal was set aside and W.P. No.1807/1981 was restored to its original file. Finally, the writ petition was heard and allowed by this Court on 29.10.1991 and Notification u/s 4 (1) of the Act was quashed. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.10.1991, the respondents filed Special Leave Petition, which was numbered as SLP No.18316/92 before the Supreme Court, which was converted as Civil Appeal No.10190/1995. The civil appeal was heard by the Supreme Court and was finally allowed on 10.11.1995 by setting aside the judgment passed in the writ petition. Consequently, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notification u/s 4 (1) was restored. The respondents, after the Civil Appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court on 10.11.1995, proceeded with the acquisition proceeding and finally passed the award on 31.10.1997. Apparently, therefore, the award was passed by the respondents within two years from the date, i.e., 10.11.1995, when the Supreme Court finally allowed the appeal and restored back the notification issued u/s 4 (1) of the Act. 18. The original owners, after having failed in their attempt to get the notification quashed, sold the lands to the present appellants. The appellants, after purchasing the lands, filed the present writ petitions challenging the award on the ground that the award having not been passed within two years from the date of Declaration, the entire proceeding lapsed by virtue of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. 19. As discussed above, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the respondents will not get the benefit of the proviso and the explanation appended to Section 11-A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, in the writ petition filed by the original owners, although interim order of status quo was passed on 3.4.1981, but the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.2.1991. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order of status quo ceased to have any force till the writ petition was finally restored on 17.9.1991. This period from 19.2.1991 to 17.9.1991 shall not be excluded while computing the period of two years for passing the award. Further contention of the learned counsel is that after the writ petition, being W.P. No.1807/1981 was finally heard and allowed on merits and Section 4 (1) notification was quashed by judgment and order dated 29.10.1991, the respondent preferred special leave petition against the said judgment, but the delay was condoned only on 10.11.1995 and in between, admittedly, there was no stay. This period also, therefore, shall not be excluded while computing the period of two years for passing the award. Hence, if these two periods are included, then the award was passed after the expiry of two years. We do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel, which is devoid of any substance. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Khullar & Anr. .vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007 (5) SCC 231) and Sewa Shikshan Mandal .vs. A.R.Mundhada Charitable Trust & Ors., (2007 (9) SCC 779). 20. In the case of Ravi Khullar & Anr. .vs. Union of India