ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1191 · Decided: 23-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
) 
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 23, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU,JJ.] 
B 
) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-ss. 4 and 6-Notification u/s 4-
Challenged in suit-Interim order upto a particular date-After some 
adjournments dismissal of suit-Declaration under Section 6, challenged 
as time barred-High Court holding that declaration not time barred in 
C 
view of the period of stay before Civil Court upto dismissal of the suit-
On appeal, held: Any declaration made after expiry of one year from the 
date of publication of Notification under Section 4(1) would be void and 
have no effect-Declaration was beyond permissible period as the stay 
order was only upto a particular date-Interlocutory Order. 
A Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
issued on 20-12-1996 for acquisition of the land in question. The validity 
D 
of the Notification was questioned by appellants by filing a suit. Interim 
injunction was granted and the same was extended from time to time. 
However when the matter was adjourned to 9.9.1998 the order of injunction 
E 
was not extended. After some adjournments suit was dismissed for default 
on 19.8.2000. A declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was 
issued on 29.11.1998. The legality of the declaration was questioned. The 
Writ Petition was dismissed by High Court. The question for consideration 
in the present appeal was whether the order of ad interim injunction 
F 
granted by the Civil Judge was operative till 9.9.1998 or 19.8.2000. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
. HELD: 1.1 There is no warrant for the proposition, as was stated by 
the High Court that unless an order of stay passed once even for the limited 
period is vacated by an express order or otherwise; the same would continue 
to operate. [Para 18] [1197-B-C] 
1.2 The term of the order of the Civil Judge does not leave any manner 
G 
of doubt whatsoever that the interim order was only extended from time to 
H 
1191 
1192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
time. The interim order having been extended till a particular date, it 
cannot be said that the respondents were under a bona fide belief that the 
injunction order would continue till it was vacated.[Para 12] [ll95-F-G] 
1.3 The purport of the order passed by the Civil Judge, in extending 
B 
the order of injunction is absolutely clear and explicit. From a bare perusal 
of the order it is evident that the order of injunction was not extended. Even 
on the subsequent dates, the order of injunction was not extended. 
(Para 13) [1195-H, 1196-A) 
2.1 Proviso (ii) appended to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of Land 
c Acquisition Act clearly debars making of any declaration in respect of any 
particular land covered by a notification issued under sub-section (1) of 
Section 4 after the expiry of one year from the date of publication thereof. 
Explanation (1) appended to the said proviso, however, stipulates that in 
computing any of the periods referred to in the first prov~o, the period during 
D 
which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification 
issued under Section, 4(1 ), is stayed by an order of a Court, shall be excluded. 
On a plain reading of the aforementioned provisions, there cannot be any 
doubt whatsoever that the period which is required to be excluded would be 
one, during which the action or proceeding taken was subjected to any order 
E 
of stay passed by a competent court oflaw. [Para 14] (1196-C-D] 
2.2 Provisions of the Act should be construed having regard to the 
purport and intent thereof. Section 6 of the Act is beneficent to the land 
owners. Any declaration made after the expiry of one year from the date of 
the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 would be 
F 
void and ofno effect. An enabling provision has been made by reason of the 
explanation appended thereto, but the same was done only for the purpose of 
extending the period oflimitation and not for any other purpose. The purport 
and object of the provisions of the Act and in particular the proviso which had 
been inserted by Act68 ofl984 and which came into forcew.e.f. 24.09.1984 
G 
must be given its full effect. The said provision was inserted for the benefit 
of the owners of land. Stich l'i"statutory benefit, thus, cannot be taken away 
by a purported construction of an order of a court which, is absolutely clear 
and explicit. (Paras 15 and 17] [1196-E, H, 11

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.