Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9596  OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 19553 of 2015)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER    ...  APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS    ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.  

2. For the purpose of operation of Section 24(2) of the The

Right  to  Fair  Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land

Acquisition,  Rehabilitation  and  Resettlement  Act,  2013

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “2013  Act”),  whether  the  stay

granted in one of the items covered by the very same Section

4(1) notification could have the effect on other lands covered

by the same notification, is the short question involved in this

appeal.

SHORT FACTS

3. Land  acquisition  proceedings  were  initiated  by

publishing  Section  4(1)  notification  under  the  1894  Act  on

1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

04.03.2003.  Section  6  declaration  was  duly  published  on

04.02.2004 and the  award was passed under  Section 11 on

03.02.2006. It is not in dispute that neither physical possession

has been taken nor compensation paid within five years prior to

the implementation of 2013 Act.  

4. 2013 Act came into force into effect on 01.01.2014. The

High  Court  rendered  a  declaration  that  the  land  acquisition

proceedings have elapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013

Act. Thus aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.

5. It is the main contention of the learned Counsel for the

appellants that in view of the stay order granted by the High

Court in respect of the adjoining land covered by the Section

4(1) notification dated 04.03.2003, the acquisition proceedings

could  not  be  completed  within  time.  The  benefit  of  the

operation  of  stay  should  be  extended  to  the  entire  lands

covered  by  Section  4(1)  notification  and  that  such  period

should be excluded while computing the period of five years

referred to under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. To buttress the

point, the learned Counsel has relied on a decision of this Court

in Om Prakash v. Union of India and others1.

1

2

Page 3

6. Om Prakash (supra) was a case where stay operated

for certain lands notified under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act, and on

account of such stay,  the declarations under Section 6 were

made  after  the  prescribed  period.  However,  in  view  of  the

Explanation  under  Section  6,  the  period  during  which  any

action  or  proceeding  to  be  taken  in  pursuance  of  the

notification issued under Section 4(1) had been stayed by an

order of the court, was liable to be excluded. It was held by this

Court  that  the interim order  of  stay granted in  some of  the

lands notified under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act would put a

complete  restraint  to  proceed  with  the  declaration  under

Section 6 of the 1894 Act, meaning thereby, the benefit of that

interim stay could be extended to the entire lands covered by

Section 4(1) notification.

7. Paragraphs-70 to 72 in Om Prakash case (supra) have

dealt with the issue and they are extracted herein below:  

“70. Perusal of the opinion of the 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 landowners to be automatically extended

(2010) 4 SCC 17

3

Page 4

to all those landowners, 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 the Full  Bench,  the relevant portions whereof have been reproduced hereinabove, appear to be reasonable, apt,  legal and proper.

71. 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 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 the 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, the 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 Act.

72. Thus, in other words, the interim order of stay  granted  in  one  of  the  matters  of  the landowners  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 Act.”

4

Page 5

8. On the same analogy, it is contended that the benefit of

stay  preventing  lapse  of  one  or  more  of  the  acquisition

proceedings  by  operation  of  Section  24 (2)  of  the  2013  Act

should be extendable to entire lands for which the acquisition

proceedings  were  initiated  as  per  Section  4(1)  notification

under the 1894 Act.

9. There is one situation of lapse under the 1894 Act itself.

In Section 11A, as under Section 6, the Explanation has saved

the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in

pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 was stayed by an

order of the court. But what is lapsed under Section 11A are the

proceedings for acquisition of the particular land for which an

award  under  Section  11 of  the  1894 Act  had to  be  passed.

Section 11 has to be preceded by a notice under Section 9 of

the  said  Act  to  the  persons  interested  in  the  land  to  be

acquired. Section 9 of the 1894 Act reads as follows:   

“9.  Notice  to  persons  interested.-(1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at  convenient  places  on  or  near  the  land to  be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession  of  the  land,  and  that  claims  to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him.

5

Page 9

as  held  by  this  Court  in  Delhi  Development  Authority v.

Sukhbir Singh5.

15. Since the lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is

post-award, that would affect only the land referred to in the

award and not  the entire  lands covered by the Section 4(1)

notification under which the proceedings for  acquisition were

initiated. Therefore, the ratio in  Om Prakash (supra) is of no

avail to the appellants.  

16. In the case before us, there is no dispute on facts that

after passing the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, no

compensation has been paid and the possession also has not

been  taken  within  five  years  prior  to  01.01.2014.  Therefore,

Section  24(2)  of  the  2013  Act  has  to  operate,  and  the

acquisition proceedings in respect of respondents’ lands where

award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had been passed, have

lapsed.

17. However, the declaration as above and the consequent

dismissal  of  this  appeal  is  without  prejudice  to  the  liberty

available to the appellants to initiate proceedings afresh for the

acquisition of the subject land under the provisions of the 2013

Act.  5 2016 (8) SCALE 655

9

Page 10

18. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the

appellants are given a period of one year to exercise its liberty

granted under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for initiation of the

acquisition proceedings afresh.

19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

20. The appeal is disposed of as above. There shall be no

order as to costs.

........................................J.         (KURIAN JOSEPH)

......………………………………J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi; September 22, 2016.   

10