Om Parkash vs Union Of India & Ors

9. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are mentioned hereinbelow.

appellant's petition which was filed in the year 1987 could not be listed along with batch matters but subsequently, appellant's petition came to be dismissed. Thus, for this reason he should not be put to an irreparable loss of losing his land.

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.

41. However, unfortunately, when the said petitions were heard on 3.3.2005, learned counsel for the appellants was absent as a result whereof, the petitions came to be dismissed. Thus, they were constrained to file review petitions but same also came to be dismissed on 27.4.2006.

accordingly were dismissed. We have been given to understand that against this judgment and order, no appeal was filed and this judgment thus attained finality.

To accept the contention that the challenges and interim orders in such petitions should be confined to the particular petitioners and C.As @ SLP(C)No.9389/05 etc. (contd.)

The words used in the explanation are of the widest amplitude and there is no justification whatever to confine its terms and operation only to the cases in which the stay order is actually obtained."

78. In the light of the aforesaid opinion having been expressed by Full Bench, the original Writ Petition of the Petitioner-Balak Ram was placed before a Division Bench for its disposal in accordance with law.

reasons in respect of the aforesaid operative part of the order were supplied in a judgment referred to as B.R. Gupta- II.

together so as to non-suit the appellants.

93. 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 C.As @ SLP(C)No.9389/05 etc. (contd.)

occasion and to grant such inequitable reliefs to the appellants, after such a long delay.

94. 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 pronounced.

C.As @ SLP(C)No.9389/05 etc. (contd.)

98. 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 24.9.1984.

102. 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 law.

103. 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 C.As @ SLP(C)No.9389/05 etc. (contd.)

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.

different conclusion that subsequent declaration issued under Section 6 was beyond the period of limitation. Fact situation does not warrant us to do so.

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 C.As @ SLP(C)No.9389/05 etc. (contd.)

harsh but inequitable also to quash the notifications so as to grant liberty to the appellants to challenge same in accordance with law.

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.

115. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that appeals have no merit and substance. The same are hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fees Rs. 10,000/- in each case.