LexBHIMANDAS AMBWANI (D) THR. LRS. versus DELHI POWER COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 1 S.C.R. 996 BHIMANDAS AMBWANI (D) THR. LRS. v. DELHI POWER COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 204-205 of 2004) FEBRUARY 12, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Land Acquistion Act, 1894 - ss.4 and 6 - Successive Notifications under s.41 Declarations under s.6- Effect- Held: C The effect would be that earlier notification/declaration stands obliterated/ superseded and in such a fact-situation, it would not be permissible for either of the parties to make any reference to the said notifications/ declarations which stood superseded - On facts, s. 4 Notification dated 26. 3. 1983 and D Declaration u/s.6 dated 13.5.1983 superseded all earlier notification/declaration - However, no proceedings were taken in pursuance of the said notification/declaration issued in the year 1983 and after commencement of the Amendment Act 1987, the said notification/declaration made in the year 1983 E stood elapsed as no award had been made within the period stipulated under the Act - Thus, there can be no sanctity to · any of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents so far as the suit land is concerned, though the appellants stood dispossessed from his land in pursuance of F the Notification uls.4 dated 5.3.1963 -Appellants had been dispossessed without resorting to any valid law providing for acquisition of land, thus, entitled for restoration of possession of the land in dispute -However, considering the fact that possession of the land was taken over about half a century G ago and a full-fledged residential colony of employees of DESU has been constructed on the said land, therefore, it would be difficult for respondent no. 1 to restore the possession - In such a fact-situation, the only option left out to the respondents is to make the award treating s. 4 notification as, H 996 BHIMANDAS AMBWANI (D) THR. LRS. v. DELHI 997 POWER COMPANY LIMITED on this date, i.e. 12.2.2013 - Land Acquisition Collector A directed to make· award after hearing the parties within a period of four months - Appellants at liberty to file a reference u/s. 18 of the Act and to pursue remedies available under the Act - Appellants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits. B Bhutnath Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 675; Land Acquisition . Officer-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District v. A. Ramachandra Reddy & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 662: 2011 (1) SCR 324; Raghunath & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1615: 1988 (3) SCC 294; Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. & Anr. C v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) AIR 1990 SC 731: 1990 (1) SCC 59; Raipur Development Authority v. Anupan Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 357: 2000 (2) SCR 781 and Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. thr. 0 Power of Attorney Holder v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC. 353 - relied on. Case Law Reference: (1969)3 SCC675 relied on Para 7 E 2011 (1) SCR 324 relied on Para 8 1988 (3) sec 294 relied on Para 8 1990 (1) sec 59 relied on Para 8 F 2000 (2) SCR 781 relied on Para 8 (2013) 1 sec 353 relied on para 10,11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. G 204-205 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 22.03.2002 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 46 of 1983. WITH H 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A C.A. No. 203 of 2004. Amit Sibal, Arvind Kumar, Purti Marwaha, Henna George, C.S. Chauhan, Anupam Lal Das, A. Ahlawat, Rani Chhabra, Vishnu 8. Saharya (for Saharya & Co.) for the appearing B parties. c The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 204-205 OF 2004 1.These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2002, passed by 0 Delhi High Court in LPA No. 46 of 1983 and judgment and order dated 21.5.2002 passed in Review Application C.M. No.893 of 2002 therein by way of which the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.11.1982 had been allowed. E 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:- A. The appellants had been conferred title over the land in Khasra No.307 admeasuring 3 bighas and 3 biswas situate in F the revenue estate of village Kilokri, Delhi and the Conveyance Deed for the same was registered on behalf of the President of India in favour of the appellant on 6.6.1962. A Notifi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.