SHANTA TALWAR & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 05-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011) 6 S.C.R. 38 
SHANTA TALWAR & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3072-73 of 2004) 
APRIL 5, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4, 5A, 6, 17(1) and 17(4) 
C - Metro Railways in Delhi - Acquisition o; land for purposes 
of Metro Railways - Applicability of the LA Act - Whether in 
view of the provisions of the Metro Railways Act, which was 
applicable to the city of Delhi, the land for the purpose of 
con·struction of Metro Railway could and should only be 
o acquired under the provisions of the said Act and not under 
the provisions of the LA Act - Held: There is no express 
provision in the Metro Railways Act repealing applicability of 
the provisions of the LA Act - So long as there is no specific 
repeal of applicability of the LA Act for the purpose of 
E 
F 
acquiring land for establishing metro railways it cannot be 
presumed that there is an implied repeal -- The Metro 
Railways Act was enacted by the legislature, in order to 
provide additional provisions for construction of Metro 
Railways or other works connected therewith but it was not 
made obligatory by the legislature to invoke only the 
provisions of the said Metro Railways Act in case of 
acquisition of land for construction of Metro Railways or other 
works connected therewith - It is left upon to the discretion of 
the concerned competent authority to take recourse to any of 
the aforesaid provisions making it clear that if resort is taken 
G 
to the provisions of LA Act, the said provisions could only be 
made applicable and no provision of the Metro Railways Act 
would then be resorted to - Similarly, if provisions of the Metro 
Railways Act is taken resort to, then only such provisions 
H 
38 
SHANTA TALWAR.& ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & 
39 
'PRS. 
would apply and not the provisions of the LA Act - There is 
A 
no bar or prohibition for the authority to take recourse to the 
' provisions of the LA Act which is also a self-contained Code 
and also could be taken recourse to for the purpose of 
acquiring land for public purposes like construction of Metro 
Railways and works connected therewith - Metro Railways 
B 
(Construction of Works) Act, 1978 - ss. 17, 40 and 45. 
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated for 
construction of Prem Nagar Station, which is a part of 
Mass Rapid Transit System [MRTS], a project undertaken 
C 
by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [DMRC). The land 
was sought to be acquired by issuing a notification under 
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), but 
by the aforesaid notification, urgency provision under 
Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the LA Act was 
also invoked dispensing with the enquiry invifing D 
objections under Section 5-A of the LA Act, which was 
followed by issuance of Declaration under Section 6 and 
notice under Section 9. 
The appellants-landowners challenged the land 
E 
acquisition proceedings contending inter alia that no 
acquisition on behalf of the Metro Railways could be 
made under the general law, i.e., LA Act, as the Metro 
Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, a special 
legislation, was enacted by the Parliament with the 
F 
specific purpose and object of speedy and adequate 
acquisition of land by the Central Government. The 
appellants contended that in view of the enactment and 
aforesaid special Act of 1978, which is a complete and 
self-contained code providing for acquisition of land G 
solely for the purposes of Metro Railways, applicability 
of the LA Act for the purpose of Metro Railways should 
be deemed to be impliedly repealed. The appellants 
further contended that the Metro Railways Act, which is 
a specific law on the subject, having specifically H 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 
A excluded incorporation of any law in the nature of 
Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the LA Act, which provides for 
dispensation of the enquiry as envisaged under Section 
5·A of the LA Act, the respondents acted Illegally and 
without jurisdiction in taking resort to the said urgency 
B provisions of the LA Act for the purpose of acquisition 
of land of the appellants, particularly, when there is no 
such provision in the Metro Railways Act for 
dispensation of such enquiry. 
The Respondents, on the other hand, contended 
C inter alia that despite the fact that the Metro Railways Act 
Is in operation, yet the respondents are not denuded of 
the power of invoking the provisions of 

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