GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MAHENDER SINGH

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 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 others[1]. 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

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.” 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:

10. Under the scheme of acquisition, an award under Section 11 has to be passed in respect of each land owned by a person/persons interested. Therefore, what is lapsed under Page 7 Section 11A is not the entire land as declared under Section 6 but the particular land belonging to person/persons in whose favour an award under Section 11 had to be passed within two years of the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.