RAVI KHULLARAND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 30-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RA VI KHULLARAND ANR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 30, 2007 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Sections 4 and 6-Land acquisition- 'Public purpose' Planned 
C development of Delhi-A Notification under Section 4 was issued for 
acquisition of lands in a village for a public purpose, namely planned 
development of Delhi-Another Notification under Section 4 was made for 
acquisition of land in a village for public purpose namely, development of 
Pa/am airport-Thereafter, the lands were given to the International Airport 
D Authority of India (IAAI) for development of an international airport-Writ 
petitions filed challenging the said acquisition of lands-It was contended 
that the lands having been acquir_ed for the planned development of Delhi, 
could not be given to the IAAI since the development of the Pa/am Airport 
was not within the contemplation of.the notification under Section 4-lt was 
further contended that the acquisition proceeding was bad for non-compliance 
E with the provision of Chapter VII of the Act-The High Court held that the 
procedure laid down in Chapter VII of the Act was not attracted since the 
acquisition was not for any 'company' within the meaning of Chapter VII of 
the Act-The High Court further held that the only difference was that 
initially the development work was undertaken by the Delhi Development 
F Authority (DDA) and after constitution of /AA!, the said development work 
was entrusted to IAAI-Some writ petitions were dismissed on account of 
delay and !aches-The High Court also held that there was nothing to show 
that the writ petitioners had filed applications to the competent authority for 
allotment of alternate sites-Correctness of-Held: The planned development 
of Delhi for which purpose the land was acquired under Section 4 of the 
G Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is wide enough to include the development and 
expansion of an airport within the city of Delhi-Thus it cannot be said that 
the land is actually being utilized for any purpose other than that for which 
it was acquired-Acquisition of land could net be invalidated only on .ihe 
ground that the public purpose was sought to be achieved through another 
H 
598 
~· 
,-
~ 
--t-
--,;. 
:.-
RAVIKHULLARv. U.0.1. 
599 
agency-There was no good reason explaining the delay in moving the High A 
Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and hence writ petitions rightly 
dismissed on account of delay and [aches-Owners of land were entitled to 
only compensation and, therefore, the question of allotment of alternative 
sites did not arise-Hence, lands in question were validly acquired. 
Section 11 A-Land acquisition-Award-Made more than 2 years from B 
the date of the publication of the declaration-Validity of -Held: The 
acquisition proceeding lapsed for failure to make an award within the 
period prescribed by Section 11 A of the Act 
Limitation Act, 1963: 
c 
Section 12~ertified copy of judgment-Time requisite to obtain-
Exclusion of-Applicability of acquisition proceedings under the Land 
Acquisition Act-Held· In the matter of computing the period of limitation 
three situations may be visualized, namely-(a) where the Limitation Act 
applies by its own force; (b) where the provisions of the Limitation Act with D 
or without modifications are made applicable to a special statute; and (c) 
where the special statute itself prescribes the period of /imitation and provides 
for extension of time and or condonation of delay-There is no scope for 
importing into Section l lA of the Land Acquisition Act the provisions of 
Section 12 of the Limitation Act-The provisions of the Limitation Act have 
E 
not been made applicable to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. 
A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
issued for acquisition of lands in a village for a public purpose, namely-
Planned Develot1ment of Delhi. A declaration under Section 6 oftbe Act was 
made in respect of the said land. Another Notification under Section 4 of the F 
Act was made for acquisition of land in a village for public purpose namely-
Development of Palam Airport. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was 
made in respect of the said land. Thereafter, the lands were given to the 
International Airport Authority of India (IAAI) for development of an 
international airport. 
The appellants filed several writ petitions before the High Court. It was G 
contended that the lands having

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