IMPORTANT POINTS
When neither possession was taken nor compensation paid where award was made 5 years prior to commencement of Act; acquisition proceedings would lapse.
The Legislature has made the period of five years absolute and unaffected by any delay in the proceedings on account of any order of stay by a court of Law.
When language of the provision is in plain wordings not creating any ambiguity or conflict the literal rule of interpretation cannot be departed from.

JUDGMENT

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

1. This I.A. No.4 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 8785 of 2013 is filed by the appellant seeking for issuing direction and pass an order for disposal of this appeal in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘the Act of 2013’). The appellant-land owner has come to this Court questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C)No. 2161 of 2006, wherein, the High Court dismissed the said petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:

The appellant Hindu Undivided Family (for short HUF) purchased land comprising of Khasra Nos. 569, 575, 581, 586, 591, 592 (New Khasra Nos. 27/9, 12, 19, 22, 36/2, 9) on 07.06.1984 in all measuring 27 bighas situated in the revenue estate of village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli (presently Tehsil Vasant Vihar, Kapashera), New Delhi. On application made by the appellant, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) vide Sanction Letter No.972/B/HQ/84 dated 23/01/1985 sanctioned the plan for constructing a farm house on part of the said land. In January 1985, the appellant constructed a farm house on the aforesaid land, which was in accordance with the plan duly sanctioned. After the completion of the construction, the MCD issued a completion certificate dated 06.11.1985 to the appellant.

3. On 26.11.2004, the Government of National Capital Territory (NCT) issued the notification dated 04.11.2004 under Section 4 of the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the L.A. Act’) in respect of land area measuring 2100 bighas and 06 biswas in respect of village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli. The public purpose mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was for construction of Dwarka, Phase II, the land of the appellant was covered in the said notification. The appellant filed his objections under Section 5A of the L.A. Act before the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’), South West Delhi opposing the proposed acquisition for public purpose.

4. Thereafter, on 10.11.2005, the declaration notification under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act dated 31.10.2005 was published in the government Gazette in respect of the land sought to be acquired including the land owned by the appellant.

5. The appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2161 of 2006 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, challenging the legality of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act. The High Court issued notice and passed an order of “status quo” in respect of the land in question. The other land holders who were similarly situated had also challenged the said two notifications and the High Court upon examining the writ petitions on merits dismissed the same with a direction to the land owners that they were permitted to file a representation to the competent authority under Section 48 of the L.A. Act, to de-notify their land and further held that till such time as their representation for denotification is decided by the NCT, the parties are directed to maintain “status quo” as to nature, title and possession of the land in question. Hence, this appeal.

6. This Court vide order dated 08.11.2010 passed an interim order to maintain “status quo” in respect of the possession of the land in question, subsequently the same was made absolute till the disposal of the appeal.

7. It is the case of the appellant that throughout the proceedings before the High Court as well as this Court, it has been in physical possession of the land involved in this appeal. In fact, the actual physical possession of the land was never taken by the respondents. Furthermore, the appellant was protected by various interim orders of “status quo” both by the High Court as well as this Court with respect to the possession of the land in question.

8. Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf o