IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4265­4266 OF 2008

RAJ KUMAR GANDHI  … APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS.  … RESPONDENTS WITH

CIVIL    APPEAL NOS.4267­4268 OF 2008  

AVTAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.       … APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ANR.  … RESPONDENTS AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6002­6003 OF 2009

KAILASH WATI & ORS.  … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.  … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The appeals have been filed aggrieved by the judgment and order

passed by the High Court, dismissing the writ petitions filed to question

the land acquisition made with respect to Scheme No.3, Pocket No.8.

1

2. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(for short, “the Act”) was issued on 31.1.1992. Public purpose

mentioned  was for the  development  of residential cum commercial

complex in scheme No.3. Declaration under section 6 of the Act was

issued on 29.1.1993. The petitioners filed a writ petition on 28.7.2004

questioning the acquisition as  well as the award dated 5.3.2003.

According to the petitioners it was passed after the lapse of three years

of the notification issued under section 6 of the Act after excluding the

period of interim stay granted by the court. The acquisition had

lapsed. The second ground raised to assail the award was that it was

not approved by the appropriate Government but by the Advisor to the

Administrator of Union Territory.

3. In the reply filed by the Chandigarh Administration, it was

contended that as many as 31 writ petitions were filed challenging the

said notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 respectively. In the

writ petitions including C.W.P No.2126 of 1993, further land

acquisition proceedings were stayed by an interim order dated

24.2.1993. Ultimately these writ petitions were dismissed by the

Division  Bench  on  22.9.1995.  Thereafter, yet another  writ petition

C.W.P. No.4433 of 1996 was filed in which further proceedings stayed

till  further orders. It  was allowed by a short order dated 11.8.1997

2

without noticing the earlier stay of proceedings and the notification

under section 4 and declaration under section 6 were quashed.

Chandigarh Administration  then  filed review application which was

allowed by a detailed order dated 31.1.2003 and order dated

11.8.1997, allowing writ petition, was recalled. A number of other writ

petitions were also filed being C.W.P. No.14804 of 1993, C.W.P.

No.14892 of 1998, and C.W.P. No.14903 of 1998. There was a stay of

further proceedings but ultimately these were dismissed on 30.9.1998.

Another batch of writ petitions being C.W.P. No.10287 of 1997, C.W.P.

No.10668 of 1997,  C.W.P.  No.10676 of 1997,  C.W.P.  No.10589 of

1997,  C.W.P.  No.10960 of  1997,  C.W.P.  No.10661 of  1997,  C.W.P.

No.12043 of 1997 and C.W.P. No.16715 of 1997 were also filed. There

was a stay of further proceedings but ultimately these writ petitions

were also dismissed by the Division Bench on 4.8.1998. Thus, there

were 43 different writ petitions. Further proceedings remained under

stay from 24.2.1993 to  31.1.2003.  Thereafter, public  notice  under

section 9 was issued on 6.2.2003 for filing the objections up to

28.2.2003. Public notice to this effect was published in leading

newspapers  on 8.2.2003 and 9.2.2003. Individual intimations were

also sent to all the landowners to file their objections.  Thereafter,

award was pronounced on 5.3.2003 and again  ex parte interim stay

had been obtained on 1.3.2005 by mentioning the wrong facts. After

3

excluding the period of stay the award had been pronounced within

the period of two years from the date of declaration published under

section 6 of the Act. The construction raised was unauthorised and

against the  provisions  of the  Periphery  Control  Act. Therefore, the

exemption was not granted. Notifications under section 4 were issued

after sanctioning by the Administrator. Thus, there was no illegality in

the acquisition.

4. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has opined

that considering the various periods of stay mentioned in the order,

the award has been passed within a period of 701 days from the date

of the declaration issued under section 6 and the decision in Kailash

Wati  &  Ors.  v.  Union  of India,  C.W.P.  No.11352 of  2004 had been

followed in a large number of cases. They were related to the same

notification of the very same Pocket or in respect of the other Pockets

of the same scheme No.3. Notifications under section 4 with respect to

scheme No.3 were issued on the same day so also declaration under

section 6 of the Act as there was one common purpose and scheme

No.3 was  formed  for the development of residential­cum­commercial

complex, college building, and sports stadium. The decision in

Devinder  Kumar v.  UT Chandigarh  –  C.W.P.  No.14804 of  1998 was

rendered  on 30.9.1998 and  Kailash  Wati  (supra) was decided on

4

14.12.2006. File of the award was sent for approval to the Government

and was approved by the Advisor.

5. This Court has also affirmed the judgment of the High Court in

C.W.P. No.10297 of 1997 and C.W.P. No.10580 of 1997 decided on

4.8.1998 in S.L.P. [C] Nos.974­975 of 1999 ­­­ Puran Chand Gupta &

Ors. v.  Union of India & Ors.  which was dismissed on 1.2.1999.  In

Devinder Kumar (supra) it was held that the moment the court grants

stay, it becomes impracticable, if not impossible, to execute the

scheme  for the land  stands  notified for  acquisition  and  everything

comes to a standstill. It is wholly immaterial whether or not a

particular individual had obtained stay qua acquisition of his land or

not. The concerned authorities could not have proceeded further to

execute the same. The purpose of the scheme could not be achieved if

the stay was granted. With respect to land in Pocket Nos.6 and 8, in

view of  stay  granted in  any of the  notifications/declarations  under

sections 4 and 6 either pertaining to Pocket No.8 or Pocket No.6. As

the writ petitions have been dismissed by the High Court, hence the

appeals have been preferred.

6. It was strenuously urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellants that the award passed is violative of the proviso to

section 11A and the interpretation put on the explanation by the High

5

Court is erroneous. Therefore, award having been passed beyond two

years of  the declaration under section 6 of  the Act,  the acquisition

stood lapsed. Learned counsel has submitted that the land is in

Pocket No.8. In the case of  Partap Chand v. Union Territory,

Chandigarh, CWP No.2126 of 1993, the interim stay granted could not

have been applied to the declaration under section 6 issued in the

instant case with respect to Pocket No.8 which was issued on

29.1.1993 as the land of Partap Chand was in Pocket No.7 for which a

different notification was issued under section 4 so also the

declaration under  section 6.  The  High Court  has  also  counted the

period of stay in  Puran Chand & Ors. v. U.T. Chandigarh which was

with respect to Pocket No.7. The aforesaid decisions were followed in

the cases of Puran Chand Gupta (supra), Kailash Wati (supra), Avatar

Singh and Raj Kumar Gandhi while dismissing the writ petitions.

7. It was further urged by the learned counsel that the decision of

this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai (1995)

Supp 2 SCC 423 and  Abhey Ram (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Union of

India & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 421 had been misinterpreted to the extent

that the stay orders granted in different notifications were also

extended to other notifications. The law laid down by this Court is that

the stay granted in one case filed by the landowner can be extended to

6

the land of other landowners. The abovesaid logic could not have been

applied to different notifications with respect to different Pockets of the

land.  There is a distance of about 100 ft. There is a road in­between.

There was no need to describe them in Pocket Nos.7 and 8 if they were

not different.  

8. It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that the award under

section 11 is violative of the proviso to section 11 as the approval of

the appropriate Government has not been taken. Award was approved

by the Advisor on 28.2.2003. Chandigarh being Union Territory, the

Administrator ought to have approved the award as per Article 239 of

the Constitution of India. Therefore, the award suffers from the vice of

not being previously approved by the appropriate Government.  

9. The first  question for consideration is whether the award was

passed within the period stipulated under section 11A from the date of

publication of declaration under section 6 excluding the period of stay.

It is apparent from the notification issued under section 4 and

declaration under section 6 that notification under section 4 had been

issued for the development of residential­cum­commercial complex

and for construction of college building and sports stadium etc. by the

Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, Union Territory Chandigarh and

declarations under section 6 had also been issued for the aforesaid

7

purpose i.e. Scheme No.3. Though different notification under section

21 and declaration under section 6 had been issued, they are related

to scheme No.3 only. Scheme No.3 is one and this aspect has been

considered by the High Court in the decisions of Puran Chand Gupta

&  Ors.  (supra) and  Devinder  Kumar  (supra) and the  matters  have

travelled to this Court with respect to same notification and a 3­Judge

Bench of this Court in the case of Puran Chand Gupta & Ors. v. Union

of India & Ors., C.A. Nos.663­664 of 2000 decided on 8.8.2001 has

observed:

“The point at issue is covered by the judgment of a Bench of three  learned  Judges  delivered  in  Yusufbhai  Noormohmed Nendoliya vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.  (1991 (4) S.C.C. 531). That  Judgment  has  been  subsequently  followed  by  several Benches of this  court.  It  has been urged by Mr.  R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, that the view taken therein can  be  contrary  to  the  interest  of  the  landholder  and  that, therefore, the Section should be so construed that it refers only to  an  order  of  stay  obtained  by  a  particular  landholder  in whose case alone the Explanation would apply. Having regard to the view that has consistently been taken by this court over several years, we are not disposed to take a contrary view and refer the matter to a larger Bench.  Accordingly, the civil appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.”  

10. In Devinder Kumar (supra) also the question about Pocket Nos.8

and 6 was considered and the High Court has held that it would not

make any difference in the matter as the scheme was one. Thus, it is

apparent that in view of the decision in  Puran Chand Gupta  (supra)

rendered by a 3­Judge Bench of this Court, no case for interference is

8

made out on merits of the case. As the question raised is similar as

urged in the aforesaid matter, a large number of matters were decided

along with Puran Chand (supra) by the High Court. When the scheme

was same  i.e.  No.3, obviously authorities could not have proceeded

further pocket­wise and they were justified not to proceed further in

view of the various stay orders granted by the High Court from time to

time with respect to different pockets of the scheme No.3.  In view of

the decision in Puran Chand Gupta (supra) which has dealt with the

case by a reasoned order, we do not find it appropriate to interfere on

the aforesaid ground urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants.

11. In  Abhey Ram  (supra) this Court has considered the extended

meaning of the words “stay of the action or proceedings” and referring

to various decisions, observed that any type of the orders passed by

the Court would be an inhibitive action on the part of the authorities

to proceed further. This Court has observed thus:

“9. Therefore, the reason given in  B.R. Gupta v. U.O.I. and Ors. 37  (1989)  DLT  150  (Del)  (DB)  are  obvious  with reference to the quashing of the publication of the declaration under  Section  6  vis-a-vis  the  writ  petitioners  therein.  The question  thus  arise  for  consideration  is:  whether  the  stay obtained  by  some  of  the  persons  who  prohibited  the respondents from publication of the declaration under Section 6  would  equally  be  extendible  to  the  cases  relating  to  the appellants. We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since  the  High  Court  in  some  of  the  cases  has,  in  fact,

9

prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the  declaration  in  the  impugned  orders  in  support  of  the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters are disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended  meaning  to  the  orders  of  stay  or  proceeding  in various cases,  namely,  Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR 1991 SC 2153; Hansraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. JT (1993) 4 SC 360; Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Kamataka and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 145; Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Etc. Etc. v.  State  of  Rajasthan  and  Ors.  JT  (1993)  3  SC  194;  G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by Lrs.  and Anr.  v.  Govt.  of Karnataka and Anr. JT (1991) 3 SC 12 and Roshanara Begum Etc. v. U.O.I. and Ors. (1986) 1 Apex Dec 6. 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  5-A was  put  in  issue  and  the declaration under Section 6 was questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 to be 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 5-A enquiry  and  consideration  of  objections  as  it  was  not challenged by the respondent union. We express no opinion on its correctness, though it is open to doubt.”

12. In  Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors.  (2010) 4 SCC 17, this

Court as to the effect of interim stay has observed thus:

“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

10

matter by issuing declaration/notification under Section 6 of the Act.”

Thus, it is apparent that when the stay has been granted in one

matter and when the scheme was one, authorities were justified in the

facts and circumstances of the instant case to stay their hands.

Moreover, a large number of writ petitions have been dismissed by the

High Court and orders have attained finality and this Court has also

dismissed the appeals/S.L.P.s.  Thus,  we are not  inclined to take a

different view in the instant case.

13. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision of Government

of T.N. & Anr. v. Vasantha Bai (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 423, in which this

Court has considered the object of section 11A as delay in passing the

award would cause untold hardship and in case the award was not

passed within the time limit, the acquisition would lapse. Yusufbhai’s

decision (supra) has been relied upon so also the decision of Singappa

v. State of Karnataka (supra). There is no dispute with the proposition

laid down in the aforesaid decisions. However, facts of each and every

case have to be seen and whether time can be excluded or not, it has

also been laid down that the time spent during which there was stay,

has to  be excluded.  Thus,  no  sustenance can be derived  from the

aforesaid decision of Vasantha Bai (supra) by the appellants in which

it was observed:  

11

“5.  Parliament enacted Section 11A with a view to prevent inordinate delay being made by the Land Acquisition Officer in  making  the  award.  The  price  to  be  paid  for  the  land acquired under compulsory acquisition is the prevailing price as on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification. The delay  in  making  the  award  deprives  the  owner  of  the enjoyment  of  his  property  or  to  deal  with  the  land  whose possession has already been taken, and delay in making the award would subject the owner of the land to untold hardship. With  a  view  to  relieve  hardship  to  the  owner  or  person interested in the land and to remedy the lapses on the part of the  Land Acquisition Officer  in  making the  award,  Section 11A  was  enacted  which  enjoins  making  of  award expeditiously. So, the outer limit of two years from the last of the dates of publications, envisaged in Section 6 of the Act was fixed. If he fails to do so, all the acquisition proceedings under the Act would stand lapsed and the owner of the land or person interested in the land is made free to deal with the land as  an  unencumbered  land.  Cognizant  to  the  fact  that  the acquisition proceedings are questioned in a court of law, the Parliament enacted Explanation to Section 11-A declaring that the period during which action or proceedings were taken in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 is stayed by an order of the court, the same "shall be excluded".

14. Learned counsel  has  also relied  upon  Yusufbhai  Noormohmed

Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat & Anr.  (1991) 4 SCC 531 in which this

Court has opined that the Explanation to section 11A is in the widest

possible terms  and there is no  warrant for limiting the action or

proceedings referred to in the Explanation to actions or proceedings

preceding the making of the award under section 11. Therefore, the

period  of an injunction  obtained  by the landholder from  the  High

Court restraining the land acquisition authorities from taking

possession of the land has to be excluded in computing the period of

two years. The decision is of no help to the submission espoused on

12

behalf of the appellant.   This Court in  Yusufbhai Noormohmed

Nendoliya (supra) observed:

"7. The said Explanation is in the widest possible terms and, in our opinion, there is no warrant for limiting the action or proceeding  referred  to  in  the  Explanation  to  actions  or proceedings preceding the making of the award under Section 11 of the said Act. In the first place, as held by the learned Single Judge himself where the case is covered by Section 17, the possession can be taken before an award is made and we see no reason why the aforesaid expression in the Explanation should be given a different meaning depending upon whether the case is covered by Section 17 or otherwise. On the other hand, it appears to us that Section 11-A is intended to limit the benefit conferred on a landholder whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section 6 is made to in cases covered by the Explanation. The benefit is that the award must be made within a period of two years of the declaration, failing which the acquisition proceedings would lapse and the land would revert to the land-holder. In order to get the benefit of the said provision what is required, is that the land-holder who seeks the benefit  must  not  have obtained any order  from a court restraining  any  action  or  proceeding  in  pursuance  of  the declaration  under  Section  6  of  the  said  Act  so  that  the Explanation covers only the cases of those land-holders who do not obtain any order from a court which would delay or prevent the making of the award or taking possession of the land acquired.  In  our  opinion,  the  Gujarat  High Court  was right in taking a similar view in the impugned judgment."

15. Reliance has also been placed on Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan

v. State of Karnataka & Ors.  (1994) 4 SCC 145, in which this Court

has laid down that in case there was a stay of dispossession, no useful

purpose would be served by  issuing a declaration under section 6.

Therefore, the period during which the order of dispossession granted

by  the High Court  operated,  should  be excluded  in  the computing

period.  In Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan (supra) this Court observed:

13

"2. The petitioner contends that the declaration under Section 6 was not published within three years from the date of the Notification  dated  May  17,  1984,  and,  therefore,  the Notification under Section 4(1) shall stand lapsed. We find no substance  in  the  contention.  Firstly  the  case  would  be dismissed  on  a  short  ground  that  though  this  plea  was available to the petitioner, he did not raise the same in the first instance and that, therefore, by operation of Section 11 C.P.C. it operates as constructive res judicata. Under first proviso to Section  6(1),  as  amended  in  the  Land  Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 through Section 6 thereof that (i) no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a  notification  under  Section  4,  Sub-section  (1)  shall  be published after  the commencement of  the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance. 1967. but before the commencement  of  the  Land Acquisition  (Amendment)  Act, 1984,  after  the  expiry  of  three  years  from the  date  of  the publication of the notification or (ii) after the commencement of  the  Land  Acquisition  (Amendment)  Act,  1984  shall  be made  after  the  expiry  of  one  year  from  the  date  of  the publication of the notification. In other words, under the pre- Amendment Act the declaration under Section 6(1) shall not be published after the expiry of three years from the date of Section 4(1) publication and after the commencement of the Amendment Act, the State has no power to proceed with the mater and publish the declaration under Section 6(1) after the expiry  of  one  year  from the date  of  the  publication of  the notification.  Explanation  1  thereto  provides  the  method  or mode  of  computation  of  the  period  referred  to  in  the  first proviso,  namely,  the  period  during  which  "any  action  or proceeding" be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 being "stayed by an order of  a  Court  shall  be  excluded",  In  other  words,  the  period occupied  by  the  order  of  stay  made  by  a  Court  shall  be excluded.  Admittedly,  pending  writ  petition  on  both  the occasions  the  High  Court  granted  "stay  of  dispossession". Admittedly, the validity of tenability of the notification issued and published under Section 4(1)  is  subject  of adjudication before the High Court. Till the writ petitions are disposed of or the appeals following its heels,  the stay of dispossession was  in  operation.  Though  there  is  no  specific  direction prohibiting the publication of the declaration under Section 6, no useful purpose would be served by publishing Section 6(1) declaration  pending  adjudication  of  the  legality  of  Section 4(1)  notification.  If  any  action  is  taken  to  pre-empt  the

14

proceedings, it would be stigmatised either as "undue haste" or  action  to  "over-reach  the  Court's  judicial  process". Therefore, the period during which the order of dispossession granted by the High Court operated, should be excluded in computation" of the period of three years covered by Clause (1) of the first proviso to the Land Acquisition Act. When it is so  computed,  the  declaration  published  on  the  second occasion is perfectly valid. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justification to quash the notification published under Section 6 dated May 17, 1984. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.”

16.  In the instant case, various notifications and declarations under

sections 4 and 6 were issued on the same date with respect to the

same scheme. Thus, they were part and parcel of the same scheme.

Thus, the submission raised  by learned counsel for the appellant

stands rejected.   

17. The second and the last submission raised by learned counsel

for the appellant is that the award had been approved by the Advisor

to the Administrator whereas it was required to be approved by the

Administrator. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon the

Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987 (Act No.2 of 1988).

Section 3 thereof provides that any power, authority or jurisdiction or

any duty which the Administrator may exercise or discharge under

any law in force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh may be exercised

or discharged also by such officer or other authority as  may be

specified in this behalf by the Central Government or the

15

Administrator by notification in the Official Gazette, and any appeal or

application for revision can be transferred for disposal to an officer or

other authority competent  under sub­section (1) to dispose of the

same.  Ex  post facto authorisation dated 7.12.2015  has also been

placed on record given by the Administrator authorising the Advisor

and validating/approving awards. As the award was approved by the

Advisor  to  the Administrator under his delegated authority,  ex­post

facto  sanction had been granted by the Administrator to all the

awards.

18. Apart from that the question of an award having been approved

by the advisor to the Administrator was raised in C.W.P. No.17935 of

2014 – Gagandeep Kang & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh. The

writ petition was dismissed by the High Court and the S.L.P. filed in

this Court has also been dismissed by this Court. S.L.P. [C] No.355 of

2015 has also been dismissed along with two other matters by this

Court.

19. In view of the various decisions rendered  in the same matter

which have attained  finality, it  would not  be  appropriate to take a

different view. Reliance has been placed by  learned counsel  for the

appellant on the decisions of this Court in Surinder Singh Brar & Ors.

v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 403 and Gurbinder Kaur Brar &

16

Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 228. In both the cases, the

matter was with respect to sanction for land acquisition which was not

granted by the appropriate Government i.e., the Administrator. In the

instant case, the Advisor had approved the award. Since there is  ex­

post facto approval and a large number of other matters have already

been dismissed, it is not considered appropriate to make interference

in this matter on the aforesaid ground, particularly when sanction for

acquisition had been granted by the appropriate authority, is not in

dispute in the instant matter.

20. Resultantly, the appeals being devoid of merits deserve dismissal

and the same are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs, as

incurred.

……..…………………..J. (ARUN MISHRA)

…….……………………J. UDAY UMESH LALIT)     

NEW DELHI; MAY 11, 2018.

17