Back
2011 (3) Supreme 12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Shanta Talwar & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3072-73 of 2004
with
Civil Appeal No. 3199 of 2008
with
Civil Appeal No. 3200 of 2008
Decided on : 5-4-2011
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -Sections 4,6,17(1),17(4)- Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 -Acquisition of lands of appellants under L A Act for construction of Prem Nagar Station, a part of Mass Rapid Transit System which was a project undertaken by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation –Grievance of appellants that in view of the provisions of Metro Railways Act, which was applicable to the city of Delhi, land for the purpose of construction of Metro Railway ought to have been only acquired under the provisions of said Act and not under the provisions of LA Act-The Metro Railways Act was enacted by the legislature, in order to provide additional provisions for construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith but it was not made obligatory by the legislature to invoke only the provisions of the said Metro Railways Act in case of acquisition of land for construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith- It was left upon to the discretion of the concerned competent authority to take recourse to any of the aforesaid provisions making it clear that if resort was taken to provisions of LA Act, said provisions could only be made applicable and no provision of Metro Railways Act would then be resorted to- Similarly, if provisions of Metro Railways Act was taken resort to, then only such provisions would apply and not the provisions of the LA Act- Appellants suffered no prejudice except for the fact that possession was taken in the instant case on an urgent basis-Appeals having no merits dismissed. (Paras 24 to 27)
Facts of the Case :
Lands of appellants were acquired herein in the instant case under L A Act for construction of Prem Nagar Station, a part of Mass Rapid Transit System which was a project undertaken by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. Grievance of appellants that in view of the provisions of Metro Railways Act, which was applicable to the city of Delhi, land for the purpose of construction of Metro Railway ought to have been only acquired under the provisions of said Act and not under the provisions of LA Act.
Findings of the Court :
The Court Held that it could not be said that by inserting said provision under Section 40 and Section 45 and also in view of the Statements of Object and Reasons of the Metro Railways Act, the applicability of LA Act for the purpose of acquisition of land for construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith would stand repealed and could not be taken resort to. There was No express provision in the Metro Railways Act repealing applicability of the provisions of the LA Act. So long as there was no specific repeal of applicability of the LA Act for purpose of acquiring land for establishing metro railways it could not be presumed that there was an implied repeal . It also could not be construed that Metro Railways Act was a special Act, of such a nature, that with the enactment of said Act general law in LA Act would get obliterated and automatically repealed so far as acquisition of land for the purpose of Metro Railways.
It was further held that The Metro Railways Act was enacted by the legislature, in order to provide additional provisions for construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith but it was not made obligatory by the legislature to invoke only the provisions of the said Metro Railways Act in case of acquisition of land for construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith. It was left upon to the discretion of the concerned competent authority to take recourse to any of the aforesaid provisions making it clear that if resort was taken to provisions of LA Act, said provisions could only be made applicable and no provision of Metro Railways Act would then be resorted to. Similarly, if provisions of Metro Railways Act was taken resort to, then only such provisions would apply and not the provisions of the LA Act. Appellants suffered no prejudice except for the fact that possession was taken in the instant case on an urgent basis, Appeals having no merits were dismissed
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —
1. Since all these appeals involve identical issues, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment and order.
2. All these appeals are directed against the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Delhi, whereby the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein. The Writ Petition Nos. WP(C) 8440- 43/2003; 2329/04 and 2786/04 filed by Pawan Singh & Ors.; Shanta Talwar and Diwan Chand, respectively, were dismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by its common judgment and order dated 07.04.2004, whereas, the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 716/08 filed by Neera Jain and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 573/08, in which Veena Kapuria was the second Petitioner, were dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 11.04.2008 passed by another Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.
3. For the sake of brevity and convenience we propose to take the facts of the case in the Writ Petitions filed by Pawan Singh & Ors.; Shanta Talwar and Diwan Chand challenging the acquisition proceedings of their lands for the construction of Prem Nagar Station, which is a part of Mass Rapid Transit System [for short ‘MRTS’], which is a project undertaken by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [for short ‘DMRC’]. The aforesaid land was sought to be acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short ‘the LA Act’] on 16.10.2003, but by the aforesaid notification, urgency provision under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the LA Act was also invoked dispensing with the enquiry inviting objections under Section 5-A of the LA Act, which was followed by issuance of Declaration under Section 6 and notice under Section 9 on 11.11.2003. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the possession of the land was also taken by the DMRC on 24.12.2003 and thereafter construction of the metro station was started, which also stand completed as of now. An award was passed in respect of the aforesaid land by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.09.2004. Smt. Shanta Talwar and other appellants received the compensation as fixed by the Collector.
4. The Parliament of India, in the year 1978 had also enacted another legislation, namely, the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 [for short ‘the Metro Railways Act’] which also contains the provisions for acquisition of land required for specific purpose, namely, for the construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith, like: -
(a) make or construct in, upon, across, under or over any lands, buildings, streets, roads, railways or tramways or any rivers, canals, brooks, streams or other waters or any drains, water- pipes, gas-pipes, electric lines or telegraph lines, such temporary or permanent inclined planes, arches, tunnels, culverts, embankments, aqueducts, bridges, ways or passages, as the metro railway administration thinks proper;
(b) alter the course of any rivers, canals, brooks, streams or water-courses for the purpose of constructing tunnels, passages or other works over or under them and divert or alter as well temporarily as permanently, the course of any rivers, cannals, brooks, streams or water-courses or any drains, water-pipes, gas-pipes, electric lines or telegraph lines or raise or sink the level thereof in order the more conveniently to carry them over or under, as the metro railway administration thinks proper;
(c) make drains or conduits into, through or under, any lands adjoining the metro railway for the purpose of conveying water from or to the metro railway;
(d) erect or construct such houses, warehouses, offices and other buildings and such yards, stations, engines, machinery, apparatus and other works and conveniences, as the metro railways administration thinks proper;
(e) alter, repair or discontinue such buildings, works and conveniences as aforesaid or any of them, and substitute others in their stead;
(f) draw, make or con
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
