DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. versus TARUN PAL SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 15-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017) 14 S.C.R. 202 
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
TARUN PAL SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 19356 of 2017) 
NOVEMBER 15,2017 
(ARUN MISHRA AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.) 
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
C Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 
ss. 24(J)(b) and proviso to s.24(2) - Whether Proviso to 
sub- section (2) of s. 24 governs sub-section (l)(b) of s. 24 or is 
confined to sub-section 24(2) alone - Held: ss.24(1) and 24(2) 
operate in two different fields - The proviso is only an exception to 
D the main provision - For applicability of the proviso, the case has 
to be covered by s.24(2)- The object of the proviso is to give benefit 
of computation of compensation to all landholders and to save land 
acquisition proceedings - The legislative intention is clear that it is 
enacted as proviso to s.24(2) - If it is read as proviso to s. 24(J)(b), 
it would create repugnancy with said provision and provisions of 
E s.24(J)(b) and 24(2) would become wholly inconsistent with each 
other -
The interpretation which creates inconsistency or 
repugnancy has to be avoided - No contrary intention is available 
in the provisions so as not to read the proviso as part of s.24(2) -
Interpretation of Statutes. 
F 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Proviso to a provision - Construction of - Discussed. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Effect of a proviso is to except all preceding 
G portion of the enactment. It is only occasionally that proviso is 
unrelated to subject matter of preceding section, it may have to 
be interpreted as a substantive provision. Ordinarily, a proviso 
is not interpreted as stating a general rule. Provisos are often 
added as saving clauses. A proviso must be construed with 
reference to the preceding parts of the clause to which it is 
H 
202 
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. v. TARUN.PAL 
203 
SINGH & ORS. 
appended. The proviso is ordinarily subordinate to the main A 
Section. A construction placed on proviso which brings general 
harmony to the terms of the Section should prevail. A proviso 
may sometime contain substantive provision. Ordinarily, proviso 
to a section is intended to take out a part of the main section for 
special treatment. Normally, a proviso does not travel beyond 
B 
the main provision to which it is a proviso. A proviso is not 
interpreted as stating a general rule, it is an exception to main 
provision to which it is carved out as a proviso. Proviso can not 
be construed as enlarging the scope of enactment when it can be 
fairly and properly constructed without attributing that effect. It 
is not open to read in, the words of enactment which are not to be 
C 
found there and which would alter its operative effect. [Para 9] 
(225-D-G] 
H Nizam s Religious Endowment Trust, Hyderabad v. 
Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra. Pradesh, 
Hyderabad AIR 1966 SC 1007: (1966] SCR 384; 
Kederanath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. The 
Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 12 : (1965] 
SCR 626 ; lshverlal Thakorelal Almaula (Deceased) 
after him his heirs and Legal Representatives v. Motibhai 
Nagjibhai AIR 1966 SC 459 : (1966] SCR 367 ; Shah 
Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills & Ginning Factory v. Subhash 
Chandra Yograj Sinha AIR 1961 SC 1596 ; S.Sundaram 
Pillai & Ors. v. V.R. P~ttabiraman & Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 
591: [1985] 2 SCR 643; Haryana State Cooperative 
Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Haryana State 
Cooperative Land Development Banks Employees Union 
& Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 574 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 
1039 ; Ramesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 
(2006) 6 SCC 510: (2006) 4 Suppl. SCR 227 ; Nagar 
Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Ors. AIR 
2009 SC 187 : (2008] 14 SCR 419 ; Shimbhu & Anr. v. 
State of Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 318 : (2013] 14 SCR 
136 - relied on. 
Statute Law by Craies, Seventh Edition - referred to. · 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2.1 Section 24(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and 
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and H 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A Resettlement Act, 2013 begins with non-obstante clause. The 
Parliament has given overriding effect to this provision over all 
other provisions of 2013 Act. Section 24(2) also begins with non-
obstante clause. This provision has overriding effect over Section 
24(1). It is apparent that Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 deals with 
B the lapse of acquisition in case the award had been made five 
years or more prior to commencement of the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.