Case: Om Prakash Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf. We are not concerned with the correctness of the earlier direction with regard to Section 5A enquiry and consideration of objections as it was not challenged by the respondent Union. .... Further in the same judgment, in paragraph 12 it has been held as under : 12. ... ... ... In view of the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) is a composite one and equally the declaration under Section 6 is also a composite one, unless the declaration under Section 6 is quashed in toto, it does not operate as if the entire declaration requires to be quashed. It is seen that the appellants had not filed any objections to the notice issued under Section 5A. 106. To satisfy ourselves with regard to the aforesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, we have gone through the record and find that Land Acquisition Collector had heard the objections and thereafter had forwarded the same to Lt. Governor for his opinion. The dates from which the objections were heard have already been given hereinabove. Similarly, the manner in which the same were dealt with by Lt. Governor has also been scrutinized. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the procedure adopted in the same. We are of the considered opinion that there has been full, complete and strict compliance of the provisions contained in the Act by the respondents. 107. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not necessary for us to consider the judgment of this Court in the case of Oxford English School (supra). This was a judgment by two learned Judges of this Court whereas the judgment in the case of Abhey Ram (supra) is by three learned Judges of this Court. Secondly, the question as to whether an order of stay passed in one case would be applicable to other similarly situated persons who had not been granted stay was not directly in issue in Oxford School Case (supra) decided by this Court. The question in the said case was primarily with regard to the period of limitation of three years within which a declaration under Section 6 is required to be made. 108. In the light of the foregoing discussion, more so, keeping in mind the ratio of which stood concluded by a judgment of Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of Abhey Ram (supra), we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where we are called upon to come to a different conclusion that subsequent declaration issued under Section 6 was beyond the period of limitation. Fact situation does not warrant us to do so. 109. Impugned orders passed by High Court from time to time would reveal that some have been dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and laches. We have gone through the said orders critically and find that if the appellants were under some bonafide mistake and had not challenged the issuance of notifications or declaration under Section 6 of the Act within a reasonable time then on the ground that there was an eclipse period during which they were not supposed to take any legal action, would be of no help to them. For that they have to thank their own stars. Some of the petitions have been filed either in the year 2000 or subsequent thereto. Thus, the High Court was justified in not entertaining such petitions on the ground of delay and laches. Even though, they have tried to attempt to explain the delay but such a long delay cannot be condoned more so, when proceeding of acquisition was initiated in the year 1980. 110. It may be recalled that notifications were issued in the year 1980. Almost 30 years have already passed by, but, no steps could be taken to formally complete the scheme so far. Thus, after such a long lapse of time, it will not only be harsh but inequitable also to quash the notifications so as to grant liberty to the appellants to challenge same in accordance with law. 111. The contention that in the cases of Abhey Ram and Gurdip Singh Uban, admittedly, no objections were preferred under Section 5A of the Act, therefore, the appellants cases stood on a higher pedestal than those which were considered in the aforesaid two cases also has no merits. It was also submitted that the so called satisfaction of Lt. Governor was not legally tenable as admittedly no records were sent to him by the Land Acquisition Collector after deciding the objections filed by the appellants along with his report. We have already mentioned above that there has been application of mind by the Lt. Governor to the facts of the case. 112. As has been mentioned above and held by this Court in Abhey Ram (supra) that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act being composite one it would not be proper and legally justifiable to quash the same more so when most of the appellants had not filed any objections under Section 5A of the Act. Thus, the declarations issued under Section 6 of the Act cannot be quashed. 113. The clear ratio of the aforesaid passage of this Court is that unless the declarations issued by respondents on as many as four dates, as mentioned hereinabove, in the year 1985, are quashed in toto, it cannot be said that respondents could not have proceeded further with regard to acquisition of those lands for which the same has not been quashed earlier. 114. In other words, it has been held that for all remaining lands for which neither the notifications under Section 4 nor declarations under Section 6 have been quashed, acquisition proceedings, notification/declaration issued for remaining lands would continue to hold good and respondents can proceed further.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]20. Perusal of the aforesaid order would make it abundantly clear that while considering the appellants petition, High Court was of the opinion that in the light of the opinion expressed by Full Bench in Balak Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1987 Delhi 239 (refered to as B.R.Gupta-I), affirmed by this Court in Abhey Ram (Dead by LRs) and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 421 decided on 22.04.1997, holding therein that declaration issued under Section 6 was not beyond time21. Impugned order further shows that it placed reliance on another judgment of this Court reported in (1990) 7 SCC 44, Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. wherein it has been held that all those land-owners who had not preferred objections under Section 5A of the Act, could not be allowed to contend that either enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was bad or the declaration issued under Section 6 must be struck down on the ground of limitation or consequently, notification issued under Section 4 of the Act would stand lapsed. Thus, the appellants petition was not entertained and ultimately came to be dismissed22. It has neither been disputed here nor before the High Court that some of the appellants herein and many similarly situated land-owners had not preferred objections under Section 5A of the Act. There are other appeals, in which objections were preferred but have been decided against them or even though objections were preferred but were not pressed, on account of subsequent developments that have taken place. We would deal with those type of matters little later.76. Explanation 1 appended to first proviso of Section 6 of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove, makes it crystal clear that where any order of stay has been granted in favour of land owner, while computing the period of limitation of three years for issuance of Section 6 notification, the actual period covered by such order of stay should be excluded. In other words, the period of three years would automatically get extended by that much of period during which stay was in operation.83. In fact, after the pronouncement of the judgment in Abhey Ram (supra) rendered by three learned Judges of this Court, nothing survives in these Appeals, but looking to the vehement arguments advanced by learned senior counsel Mr. P.P. Rao, we have once again examined the whole controversy in the light of his arguments84. Even though judicial propriety and discipline create legal hurdles and impediments, in coming to a different conclusion than what has already been arrived at by three learned Judges of this Court in Abhey Ram (supra), but looking to the arguments advanced, we proceed to decide it.86. Even though the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants appear to be attractive, but, on deeper scanning of the same we are of the opinion that on account of omission of the appellants, they cannot be granted dividend for their own defaults. The appellants should have been more careful, cautious and vigilant to get the matters listed along with those 73 petitions, which were ultimately allowed by the High Court. Not having done so, the appellants have obviously to suffer the consequence of issuance of notifications under Section 4 and further declaration under Section 6 of the Act87. Perusal of the opinion of Full Bench in B.R. Gupta-I would clearly indicate with regard to interpretation of the word any in Explanation 1 to the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act which expands the scope of stay order granted in one case of land owners to be automatically extended to all those land owners, whose lands are covered under the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether there was any separate order of stay or not as regards their lands. The logic assigned by Full Bench, the relevant portions whereof have been reproduced hereinabove, appear to be reasonable, apt, legal and proper88. It is also worth mentioning that each of the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act was composite in nature. The interim order of stay granted in one of the matters, i.e., Munni Lal (supra) and confirmed subsequently have been reproduced hereinabove. We have also been given to understand that similar orders of stay were passed in many other petitions. Thus, in the teeth of such interim orders of stay, as reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that during the period of stay respondents could not have proceeded further to issue declaration/notification under Section 6 of the Act. As soon as the interim stay came to be vacated by virtue of the main order having been passed in the writ petition, respondents, taking advantage of the period of stay during which they were restrained from issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, proceeded further and issued notification under Section 6 of the Act89. Thus, in other words, the interim order of stay granted in one of the matters of the land owners would put complete restraint on the respondents to have proceeded further to issue notification under Section 6 of the Act. Had they issued the said notification during the period when the stay was operative, then obviously they may have been hauled up for committing contempt of court. The language employed in the interim orders of stay is also such that it had completely restrained the respondents from proceeding further in the matter by issuing declaration/notification under Section 6 of the Act90. No doubt, it is true that language of Section 6 of the Act implies that declarations can be issued piecemeal and it is not necessary to issue one single declaration for whole of the area which is covered under notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Parliament was aware of such type of situation and that is why such a right has been carved out in favour of respondent-State. In many cases, urgency clause may be invoked, therefore, the right of filing objections under Section 5A of the Act would not arise. In some cases, even though objections might be preferred under Section 5A of the Act, but, may not be pressed in spite of knowledge of acquisition of land. Some of the land owners may not prefer to file any objections at all. In order to meet such type of exigencies as may arise in the case, power has been given by the Parliament to the Executive to issue declarations in piecemeal under Section 6 of the Act, wherever it may be feasible to implement the scheme91. The facts of the aforesaid cases would show that in the case in hand as many as four declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued from time to time. Finally when declaration is quashed by any Court, it would only enure to the benefit of those who had approached the Court. It would certainly not extend the benefit to those who had not approached the Court or who might have gone into slumber92. To us, this appears to be the scheme of the Act and that was the intention of the Parliament. That being so, scheme of the Act as has been legislated, has to be given full effect to93. We find no ground to grant the same reliefs to those appellants to whom on earlier occasions, same relief was granted. At this long distance of time, it would neither be proper nor legally justified to grant that benefit to the appellants. If it is granted to even those who had not approached the court, then it would frustrate the very purpose and scope of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that final quashment of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act by any Court, in some other matter, cannot be extended to the benefit of the present appellants. In any case, there is no ground for us, to rise to the occasion to do so, much less to the benefits of the appellants. In our considered opinion, it is not a fit case where situation or circumstances call upon us to rise to the occasion and to grant such inequitable reliefs to the appellants, after such a long delay94. Obviously, the appellants cannot be rewarded on account of their own lapse as they should have been vigilant enough to get their matters also listed along with those in whose favour ultimately judgment was pronounced95. Looking to the scheme of the Act, it is obvious that the appellants would certainly suffer the consequence of the interim order passed in some other matters preferred by other land owners challenging the notifications but finally benefit thereof cannot be accrued to the appellants as the same would obviously be confined to those petitioners only in whose favour orders were passed96. The arguments advanced by Mr. P.N. Lekhi appear to be attractive at the first instance, but, after going through closer and deeper scrutiny of the first proviso appended to Section 6 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that certain period has been saved. First proviso clearly indicates that all actions which have taken place between the period, after commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Ordinance 1967 but before the commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984, would be saved. There is no dispute in these matters that notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued on 05.11.1980 and 25.11.1980, the period which is covered by the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act. Thus, this ground sought to be advanced by Mr. Lekhi as well as Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, cannot be accepted and is decided against them97. In fact, this aspect of the matter has been dealt with elaborately in the opinion expressed by Full Bench in the case of B.R. Gupta-I. The proviso, according to Full Bench opinion, is very elaborate and made Explanation 1 applicable to the computation of any of the periods referred to in first proviso. In the said judgment, four situations have been carved out. Situation No.(ii) would cover the present case which deals with notification issued under Section 4 after 28.1.1967 but before 25.9.1981. Relevant portion of paragraph 11 thereof is reproduced hereunder :If the object of the legislature had been to confer the benefit of the explanation only to situations (iii) and (iv), it could have enacted the proviso as indicated earlier and added an explanation that, in computing the period of limitation, periods covered by stay orders would be excluded. The legislature need not have at all referred to situation (ii) above. But the Legislature also wanted to make it clear that the explanation would apply in respect of notifications under S.4 issued prior to 25-9-1981 as well. In doing so, the provision could well have taken into account even S.4 notifications issued prior to 29-1-1967 for it was quite conceivable that, though the two year period for following these up with declaration under S.6 had elapsed by 28-1-1969, the failure to make a S.6 declaration may have been the consequence of a stay order from a court. But the Legislature decided to exclude this category from the provision for extension in the explanation, and decided to confine itself to all notifications under S.4 made after 29-1-1967. This is very important and the manner in which cl.(a) of the proviso is worded so as to cover all notifications after 29-1-1967 and before 24-9-1984 precludes the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners seeking to limit the operation of the explanation. This contention is that the amendments of 1984 can at best only affect cases in which the three year period prescribed in 1967 had not expired by 24-9-1984. In other words, the argument is that only cases covered by notifications under S.4 issued after 25-9- 1981 can be affected by the amendments and have the benefit of the extended period contemplated in the explanation. This contention is clearly unacceptable. It runs counter to the entire scheme of the proviso (which specifically takes in all the period after 29-1-1967) and the explanation (which is specifically made applicable to both the clauses of the proviso). We are, therefore, of opinion that the language and intendment of the provision are clear and unambiguous and that the period of exclusion mentioned in the explanation should be taken into account in the cases of all notifications issued after 29-1-1967 whether or not the period otherwise limited under the proviso for a follow-up declaration under S.6 in respect thereof had expired or not. We, therefore, reject the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners.. Thus, considering the matter in the light of the opinion expressed by Full Bench as also with the plain reading of the first proviso and explanation (i) the following opinion can be safely deduced and the aforesaid conclusion would be inescapable that the exclusion envisaged is available in respect of notifications issued between the period commencing from 29.1.1967 and 24.9.198499. As mentioned hereinabove, in Chatro Devi-I both the learned Judges dismissed the writ petition in respect of the cases where Land Acquisition Collector was the same who had heard the arguments then prepared the report and also in respect of those who had not preferred any objections under Section 5A of the Act. The decision of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in B.R. Gupta-II (supra) was held to be incorrect and acquisition proceedings were upheld in respect of aforesaid cases. However, difference of opinion was confined only with regard to import and interpretation of Section 5A of the Act as to what would constitute hearing100. Primarily, Honble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (as he then was) was of the opinion that even if matters have been heard by A and decided by B, it would amount to sufficient compliance of Section 5A of the Act but Honble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur was of the view that if a matter is heard by A obviously it has to be decided by him only and if it has been decided by B then the same would amount to miscarriage of justice and obviously would lead to violation of principles of natural justice101. Only to this limited extent, with regard to interpretation of Section 5A of the Act, matter was referred to third learned Judge Honble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, (as he then was). In his separate judgment, Honble Mr.Justice Thakur concurred with the view expressed by Honble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur titled Chatro Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 137 (2007) DLT 14 known as Chatro Devi-II102. We have been given to understand that, feeling aggrieved by the majority opinion as expressed by two learned Judges in the matter of Chatro Devi II, the Union of India had filed 39 Special Leave Petitions in this Court wherein leave has been granted and appeals are now pending disposal in accordance with law103. At the first instance, we thought of getting those matters also listed before us for hearing so that once for all, the dispute pertaining to the notifications issued in the year 1980 would come to an end, but we have been informed that many of the respondents have not yet been served and some matters cannot be listed on account of technical defaults. We also requested learned counsel appearing for appellants to appear for those respondents but they showed their inability in doing so as the respondents of those appeals are not the same, who are appellants before us104. Thus, in this judgment, we are not considering the ambit, scope and interpretation of Section 5A of the Act and have specifically left it open, to be decided in the said 39 appeals105. It has not been disputed before us that after the opinion was expressed by Full Bench in B.R. Gupta-I all the connected 73 writ petitions came to be heard by Division Bench in B.R. Gupta-II. All the said petitions were allowed and the reliefs as claimed by them were granted vide order dated 18.11.1988. The question whether stay granted to some of the land owners prohibiting the authorities from publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act would be applicable to others also, who had not obtained stay in that behalf came to be considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Abhey Ram (supra). In paragraph (9) thereof it has been held as under:-9. ..... The words stay of the action or proceeding have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the orders passed by this Court would be an inhibitive action on the part of the authorities to proceed further. When the action of conducting an enquiry under Section 5A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf. We are not concerned with the correctness of the earlier direction with regard to Section 5A enquiry and consideration of objections as it was not challenged by the respondent Union. ....r in the same judgment, in paragraph 12 it has been held as under :12. ... ... ... In view of the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) is a composite one and equally the declaration under Section 6 is also a composite one, unless the declaration under Section 6 is quashed in toto, it does not operate as if the entire declaration requires to be quashed. It is seen that the appellants had not filed any objections to the notice issued under Section 5A.. To satisfy ourselves with regard to the aforesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, we have gone through the record and find that Land Acquisition Collector had heard the objections and thereafter had forwarded the same to Lt. Governor for his opinion. The dates from which the objections were heard have already been given hereinabove. Similarly, the manner in which the same were dealt with by Lt. Governor has also been scrutinized. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the procedure adopted in the same. We are of the considered opinion that there has been full, complete and strict compliance of the provisions contained in the Act by the respondents107. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not necessary for us to consider the judgment of this Court in the case of Oxford English School (supra). This was a judgment by two learned Judges of this Court whereas the judgment in the case of Abhey Ram (supra) is by three learned Judges of this Court. Secondly, the question as to whether an order of stay passed in one case would be applicable to other similarly situated persons who had not been granted stay was not directly in issue in Oxford School Case (supra) decided by this Court. The question in the said case was primarily with regard to the period of limitation of three years within which a declaration under Section 6 is required to be made108. In the light of the foregoing discussion, more so, keeping in mind the ratio of which stood concluded by a judgment of Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of Abhey Ram (supra), we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where we are called upon to come to a different conclusion that subsequent declaration issued under Section 6 was beyond the period of limitation. Fact situation does not warrant us to do so109. Impugned orders passed by High Court from time to time would reveal that some have been dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and laches. We have gone through the said orders critically and find that if the appellants were under some bonafide mistake and had not challenged the issuance of notifications or declaration under Section 6 of the Act within a reasonable time then on the ground that there was an eclipse period during which they were not supposed to take any legal action, would be of no help to them. For that they have to thank their own stars. Some of the petitions have been filed either in the year 2000 or subsequent thereto. Thus, the High Court was justified in not entertaining such petitions on the ground of delay and laches. Even though, they have tried to attempt to explain the delay but such a long delay cannot be condoned more so, when proceeding of acquisition was initiated in the year 1980110. It may be recalled that notifications were issued in the year 1980. Almost 30 years have already passed by, but, no steps could be taken to formally complete the scheme so far. Thus, after such a long lapse of time, it will not only be harsh but inequitable also to quash the notifications so as to grant liberty to the appellants to challenge same in accordance with law111. The contention that in the cases of Abhey Ram and Gurdip Singh Uban, admittedly, no objections were preferred under Section 5A of the Act, therefore, the appellants cases stood on a higher pedestal than those which were considered in the aforesaid two cases also has no merits. It was also submitted that the so called satisfaction of Lt. Governor was not legally tenable as admittedly no records were sent to him by the Land Acquisition Collector after deciding the objections filed by the appellants along with his report. We have already mentioned above that there has been application of mind by the Lt. Governor to the facts of the case112. As has been mentioned above and held by this Court in Abhey Ram (supra) that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act being composite one it would not be proper and legally justifiable to quash the same more so when most of the appellants had not filed any objections under Section 5A of the Act. Thus, the declarations issued under Section 6 of the Act cannot be quashed113. The clear ratio of the aforesaid passage of this Court is that unless the declarations issued by respondents on as many as four dates, as mentioned hereinabove, in the year 1985, are quashed in toto, it cannot be said that respondents could not have proceeded further with regard to acquisition of those lands for which the same has not been quashed earlier114. In other words, it has been held that for all remaining lands for which neither the notifications under Section 4 nor declarations under Section 6 have been quashed, acquisition proceedings, notification/declaration issued for remaining lands would continue to hold good and respondents can proceed further.