DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ANR. versus KIDARNATH MOHINDERNATH & ANR,

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 30-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2017] 3 S.C.R. 510 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ANR. 
v. 
KIDARNATH MOHINDERNATH & ANR, 
(Civil Appeal No.1888 of2008) 
MARCH 30, 2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.! 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
ss. 4, 5A and 6 - Notification by appellant uls. 4 for acquiring 
C. lands in several villages, including the land of respondent no. I -
Notification also carved out exceptions inter ali{l with respect to lands 
in respect of which building platJS were sanctioned by MCD before 
5.11.1980 - Respondent No. l's land covered under .such exemption 
'-- Enquiry by appellant uls.5A seeking objections claiming 
exemption of land from acquisition on the basis of afnresaid 
D 
E 
F 
exception -" No exemption claimed by respondent no. 1 - Final 
declaration issued u/s. 6 acquiring lands including respbndent ,10.l s 
land - Writ petition by respondent no. 1 before High Court, afiowed 
- Plea of appellant that it was incumbent upon respondent no. l to 
file objections u/s.5-A to claim exemption and since no such 
exemption was claimed, the same was deemed to have been waived 
- Plea of respondent no. I that since its land was exempted in the 
.notification u!s.4, it remained under the impression that there was 
no requiremenuo file any objection seeking exemption u/s.5-A -
On appeal, held: Notification issued u/s.4 was with respect to the 
large chunk of area, comprised in several villages - Thus, it was 
necessary to claim exemption by filing objections uls.5A - Otherwise, 
there was no other mechanism available to ascertain as to which 
particular piece of I.and out of the lands so notified were granted 
sanction for building plan before 05.11.1980 - However, admittedly, 
respondent no. J did not file any objection uls. 5-A to seek exemption 
G from acquisition on the basis of the aforesaid sanction - Thus, having 
failed to do so, respondent no. I waived its rights. 
H 
·s. 6 - Declaration under - Dispute as to whether declaration 
issued u/s.6 was time barred as per proviso to s.6(1) - Computation 
of periods referred to in the first prpviso - Held: The period. during 
510 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. KIDARNATH MOHINDERNATH 
511 
which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the 
A 
notification issued u/s. 4(1), is stayed by an order of a Court, shall 
be excluded. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The notification issued under Section 4 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was with respect to the large chunk B 
of area, comprised in several villages, approximately 50,000 
bighas was proposed to be acquired. The notification issued under 
Section 4 intended to exempt the land, with respect to which 
building plans, had been sanctioned before 05.11.1980. However, 
the notification under Section 4 was with respect to the entire c 
area in villages, hence, it was necessary to claim exemption and 
there was no other mechanism available with respect to the 
ascertainment of the sanction of the building plan before 
05.11.1980, with respect to the particular piece of land, it was to 
be claimed by filing objections under Section SA of the Act. [Para 
11][515-A-CI 
D 
2.1 In the instant case, inquiry under Section 5-A had been 
held and the lands in question were proposed to be acquired and 
certain other lands were to be excluded as per notification. The 
report under Section 5-A had been accepted by appropriate 
Government and thereafter declaration under Section 6 had been 
E 
issued. According to the report under Section 5-A, the land of 
Respondent No.1 came to be included in the acquisition by virtue 
of the final declaration issued under Section 6. [Para 121(515-C-
DI 
2.2 Admittedly, Respondent No.1 did not file any objection 
F 
under Section 5-A to seek exemption from acquisition on the 
basis of the aforesaid sanction. It was incumbent upon 
Respondent No.1 to have claimed such an exemption from 
acquisition, otherwise the land of the entire village was notified 
under Section 4 for the purpose of acquisition. Having failed to 
G 
do so, it is apparent that he has waived his rights on the basis of 
so called sanction. Thus, when the claim had not been raised for 
exemption of land, inquiry under Section 5-A cannot be termed 
as illegal and consequently declaration under Section 6. Otherwise 
several complications and piquant situations may arise if it is held 
H 
512 
-- SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A that it was' not necessary to participate in inquiry to claim 
exemption then it would not 

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