LexOM PARKASH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[20_10] 2 S.C.R. 447 OM PARKASH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1514 of 2010) FEBRUARY 8, 2010 [V.S. SLRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 6, First proviso, Explanation I - Limitation for issuance of s. 6 declaration ,... Computation of - Issuance of s.4 Notification - Order of stay C in favour of land owners who preferred writ petitions before High Court - On vacation of interim stay by virtue of dismissal of writ petitions, authorities proceeded further and issued notification under s. 6 - In case of some land owners, s. 6 declaration quashed - Appellants had not challenged the s. 4 o notification - They filed writ petitions challenging s. 6 declaration which were dismissed - On appeal, held: Where any order of stay is granted in favour of land owners, actual period covered by order of stay should be excluded while computing period of limitation for issuance of s. 6 notification E - Thereafter, if declaration is quashed by any Court, it would only enure to the benefit of those who had approached the Court - The benefit would certainly not extend to them who had not approached the Court - Thus the appellants cannot be rewarded on account of their own lapse - After a long lapse of time, it would not only be harsh but inequitable also to quash the notifications so as to grant liberty to the appellants to challenge same in accordance with law - Delay and /aches - Equity. F On 5.11.1980 and 25.11.1980, notifications were G issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of more than 50,000 bighas of land situated in 1.3 different villages. Aggrieved land owners filed writ 447 H 448 .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A petitions· before High Court challenging the same. Interim ord~.f of. stay was granted. High court ultimately dismJ~sed the writ petitions. The dismissal of writ petition was not challenged and-it attained finality. Pursuant to the S~ction 4:Notification, Sectibn 6 Notification was issued. 8 The appellants had not challenged the Section 4 Notification and so there was no order of stay passed by any court in their favour i.e. there was no order of restraint from issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In case of spme of the land-owners, writ petitions C challenging the Section 6 declaration/notification before the High Court were allowed on 14.8.1988. Appellants filed writ petitions before High Court challenging the Section 6 declaration/notifications on the ground that the Section 6 declaration was not issued D within the period of three years from the date of issuance· of Section 4 notifications which rendered the acquisition illegal and void qua appellants' lands; that the stay order granted in favour of other land owners, who had challenged either the Section 4 notifications or the E Section 6 declaration would not be applicable or operative to the appellants' lands~ and that appellant claimed parity with those land-owners who successfully challenged the Section 6 declaration/notification before the High Court. The writ petitions were dismissed by F different orders passed by High Court. Hence these appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Explanation 1 appended to first proviso of G Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 makes it crystal clear that where any order of stay has been granted in favour of land owner, while computing the period of limitation of three years for issuance of Section 6 notification, the actual period covered by such order of H OM PARKASH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 449 stay should be excluded. On account of omission of the A appellants, they cannot be granted dividend for .their own defaults. The appellants ought to have been more careful, cautious and vigilant to get the matters listed along with those 73 petitions, which were ultimately allowed by the High Court. Not having done so, they have to suffer the B consequence of issuance of notifications under Section 4 and further declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The use of the word "any" in the explanation considerably amplifies its scope and shows clearly that the explanation can be invoked in any case if some action or proceeding c is stayed. It may be complete stay of the operation of the entire notification or may even be a partial stay - partial in degree or in regard to persons or lands in respect of whom it will operate. [Para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.