DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF INDIA versus SUBODH SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1160 · Decided: 30-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 1160 
DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF 
INDIA 
v. 
SUBODH SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2794 of 2011) 
MARCH 30, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Railways Act, 1989: 
s.20F(2) -
Time period for making the award -
Commencement of - Held: Period of one year. stipulated ul 
s.20F(2) for making the award, has to be reckoned from the 
date of publication of the declaration uls.20E(1) in the official 
D gazette - Land acquisition - Compensation. 
s.20E(1) -
Publication of notification under -
Requirement for- Held: s.20E requires the notification to be 
published only in the official gazette - The section does not 
require the notification of declaration to be published in any 
E newspaper or by any other mode. 
s.20F(2), first proviso - Award by competent authority 
within six months after the expiry of one year from the date of 
publication of the declaration -
Validity of - Held: If the 
F competent authority is satisfied that the award could not be 
made within a period of one year due to unavoidable 
circumstances, which are to.be recorded in writing, he could 
make the award within eighteen months - The requirement 
regarding recording of reasons is not mandatory - In the 
G instant case, the competent authority while passing award 
proc1~eded under bona fide impression that the notification of 
declc.iration u/s.20E(1) was required to be published not only 
in the official gazette, but also in the form of a public notice 
in two newspapers and that the latter of the two dates of 
H 
1160 
DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION 1161 
OF INDIA v. SUBODH SINGH 
publication would be the date of commencement of the period A 
of one year, uls.20F(2) - As a consequence, he applied the 
principle that when publication is required to be made by more 
than one mode, the date of publication by the last of the 
. prescribed modes is the date of publication - On the facts of 
the case and on harmonious reading of the provision of s. 20F, 
B 
the said reasoning in the award is treated ~s the reason for 
the delay in making the award - The acquisition did not, 
therefore. lapse - However, having regard to the second 
proviso to s.20F(2), the land owners are entitled to additional 
compensation for the delay in making of the award at a rate c 
not less than 5% of the value of the award for each month of 
delay. 
Several anomalies in the provisions of Chapter VIA -
Discussed - Need for legislation - Legislation. 
D 
The land belonging to the first respondent along with 
others was acquired for the purpose of special railway 
project. The acquisition was under Chapter IVA of the 
Railways Act, 1989. A notification dated 10.6.2008 under 
Section 20A(1) of the Act was published in official gazette 
E 
on 10.6.2008. This was followed by a declaration dated 
12.12.2008 un~er Section 20E(1) of the Act published in 
official gazette on 16.12.2008 declaring that the lands 
mentioned therein should be acquired for the purpose 
mentioned in the notification under Section 20A(1) of the 
F 
Act. A public notice referring to the two notifications and 
inviting claims from all the persons interested in tfle lands 
was published by the competent authority. in two 
newspaper on 20.2'.2009. Thereafter, the competent 
authority passed the order on 8.2.2010 determining the G 
compensation payable under Section 20F(1) of the Act. 
The first respondent filed writ petition for quashing the 
award dated 8.2.2010 and for a declaration that the entire 
acquisition proceedings stood lapsed under Section 
20F(2) of the Act, as the award was not made within one 
H 
1162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A year from the date of publication of the date of declaration 
dated 12.12.2008. The High Court allowed the writ petition 
and quashed the award dated 8.2.2010 and declared that 
the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. 
8 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
Instant appeal were whether the period of one year, 
stipulated under section 20F(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 
for making the award, has to be reckoned from the date 
of publication of the declaration under section 20E(1) of 
the Act in the official gazette or from the date of any 
C subsequent publicatfon of the declaration in newspapers 
and whether an award made within six months after the 
expiry of one year from the date of publication of the 
declaration, is valid under the first proviso to section 
20F(2) of the Act, even if

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