IMPORTANT POINTS
1. When the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is a composite one and equally the declaration u/s 6 is also a composite one, unless the declaration u/s 6 is quashed in toto, it does not operate as if that the entire declaration requires to be quashed.
2. When the Division Bench expressly limited the controversy to the quashing of the declaration us 6 of the Land Acquisition Act qua the writ petitioners before the Bench, necessary consequences would be that the declaration published u/s 6 should stand upheld.
3. The words stay of the action or proceeding have been widely interpreted 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.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1) & 6-Notification u/s 4(1) published in 1980 acquiring a large extent of land in several villages-Declaration u/s 6 published in 1985-Writ Petitions alleging that declaration having been published after 3 years, is barred by law-Full Bench of High Court upheld declaration on ground that some of land owners had obtained stay of further proceedings-Appellants had not obtained any stay pending writ petition qua appellants-Whether stay obtained by some of persons would enure the benefit to other persons under Explanation II to Section 6?-Whether quashing of declaration by Division Bench in respect of other matters would enure the benefit to appellants also ?-(No)-Division Bench expressly limited controversy to quashing of declaration qua writ petitioners before the Bench-Declaration published u/s 6 should stand upheld-Appellants had not filed any objections to the notice issued u/s 5-A.
       Held : 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. (Para 6)
       Further held : When the Division Bench expressly limited the controversy to the quashing of the declaration qua the writ petitioners before the bench, necessary consequences would be that the declaration published under Section 6 should stand upheld. (Para 7)
       It is seen that before the Division Bench judgment was rendered, the petition of the appellants stood dismissed and the appellants had filed the special leave petition in this Court. If it were a case entirely relating to Section 6 declaration as has been quashed by the High Court, necessarily that would enure the benefit to others also, though they did not file any petition, except to those whose lands were taken possession of and were vested in the State under Sections 16 and 17(2) of the Act free from all encumbrances. But it is seen that the Division Bench confined the controversy to the quashing of the declaration under Section 6 in respect of the persons qua the writ petitioners before the Division Bench. Therefore, the benefit of the quashing of the declaration under Section 6 by the Division Bench does not enure to the appellants. (Para 8)
       Consequently held : 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 that the entire declaration requires to be quashed. It is seen that the appellants had not filed any objections to the notice issued under Section 5-A. (Para 9)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections, 4(1) and 6-Composite notification u/s 4(1)-Composite declaration-Unless declaration u/s 6 is quashed in toto-It does not operate-Entire declaration requires to be quashed. (Para 9)
       (iii) Practice and Procedure -Words stay of the action or proceeding -Widely interpreted-Any type of orders passed by this Court would be an inhibitive action on part of authorities to proceed further. (Para 6)

ORDER

Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi passed on 2.3.1987 in C.W. No. 2657/85.

3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") was published on November 5, 1980 acquiring a large extent of land admeasuring 50,000 bighas situated in several villages including Khirkee village. The land in Khirkee village admeasures 1011 bighas of which the appellant is in possession of 25 bighas. Declaration under Section 6 was published on June 7, 1985. Challenging the declaration, several writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court. The primary contention was that the declaration having been published after 3 years, is barred by law. The notification under Section 4(1) stands lapsed. Similar to the appellants, several persons approached the High Court. The Full Bench in Balak Ram Gupta & Union of India1, upheld the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 on the ground that some of the land owners whose land was covered under the common notification under Section 4(1) had already approached the High Court and obtained stay of further proceedings including publication of declaration under Section 6. As a consequence, the stay obtained continuing in operation stood excluded by operation of Explanation II to Section 6(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the declaration published under Section 6(1) was held valid in law. When the present writ petition had come up for hearing, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an order stating that the controversy raised was covered by the judgment of the Full Bench and no other point has been raised or argued before the Division Bench. The writ petition has been dismissed. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. Shri Rajinder Sachhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court is not correct in law. In view of the fact that the appellants had not obtained any stay pending the writ petition qua the appellants, there is no prohibition for the respondent - U.O.I. to proceed further by publication the declaration under Section 6 and that, therefore, the declaration having been published beyond three years, is invalid in law. He further contends that after the Full Bench judgment was rendered, the matter was remitted to the Division Bench, which quashed the declaration under Section 6 on the ground that the objections filed under Section 5A were not properly considered and that, therefore, publication of the declaration under Section 6 was quashed in respect of the writ petitioners therein. The same benefits should enure to the appellants as well. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh & Ors.2 He also sought support from the judgment in Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nndoliya v. State of Gujarat & Anr.3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the appellants have not filed any objections before the Land Acquisition Collector for enquiry under Section 5-A. Therefore, the need to consider their objections does not arise. The Division Bench, after remittance, confined the controversy of quashing the declaration in respect of the lands of the writ petitioners. Therefore, it operates only with regard to them and not the persons who were not econominee parties to that judgment. In fact, many persons had accepted the award, received the compensation and sought and had reference. Therefore, the publication of the declaration under Section 6 was not bad in law on the ground of non-consideration of the objections. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the Full Bench is correct in law.

5. Having regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is: whether the view taken by the Division Bench and the Full Bench in Balak R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 721

Cases Referred (6)