SHRI ABHEY RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 931 · Decided: 22-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI ABHEY RAM (DEAD} BY LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 22, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD 
AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Ss. 4(1), 5-A and 6(1) Explanation II-Delay in publication of decla-
ration u/s. 6(1)--Stay by High Court of a composite notification u/s. 4(1) in 
respect of some of the land owners, and limiting of controversy to quashing 
of declaration u/s. 6 for non-compliance with s. SA in respect of writ 
petitioners before the High Court-Eff eel of as regards other land 
owners-Held declaration qua the appellants has not been barred by proviso 
A 
B 
c 
to s. 6 nor is it vitiated by any error of law warranting interference-In view D 
of the fact that the notification under s. 4( 1) is a composite one and, equally 
the declaration under s. 6 is also a composite one, unless the declaration 
under s. 6 is quashed in toto, it does not operate as if that the entire 
declaration requires to be quashed-Besides, the appellants had not filed any 
objections to the notice issued under s. 5-A. 
Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh & Ors. Etc., 45 (1991) 
Delhi Law Times 602 SC, held not applicable. 
Yusujbhai Noonnohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [1991] 
4 SCC 531 and B.R. Gupta v. U.O.l. & Ors., 37 (1989) Delhi Law Times 150, 
referred to. 
Words and phrases : 
"Stay of the action or proceeding"-Meaning of. 
E 
F 
Yusujbhai Noonnohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (1991] G 
4 SCC 531; Hansraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,(1993) 4 JT 360; 
Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Kamataka & Ors., (1994] 4 SCC 
145; Gandhi Grah Ninnan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. State of Rajasthan 
& Ors., (1993) 3 JT 194; G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. v. 
Govt. of Kamataka & Anr., (1991) 3 JT 12 and Roshnara Begum Etc. v. H 
931 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
U.O.l. & Ors., (1986) l Apex decision 6, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2'.9.87 of the Delhi High Court 
B 
in C.W. No. 2657 of 1985. 
c 
Rajinder Sachhar and B.R. Sabharwal for the Appellants. 
Ravinder Sethi, V.B. Saharaya, Shashi Kiran and D.S. Mehra for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties. 
This appeal by special ieave arises from the judgment of the Division 
O Bench of the High Court of Delhi passed on 2.3.1987 in C.W. No. 2657/85. 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(for short, the "Act") was published on November 5, 1980 acquiring a large 
extent of land admeasuring 50,000 bighas situated in several villages includ-
ing Khirkec village. The land in Khirkee village admeasures 1011 bighas of 
E 
which the appellant is in possession of 25 bighas. Declaration under Section 
6 was published on June 7, 1985. Challenging the declaration, several writ 
petitions came to be filed in the High Court. The primary contention was 
that the declaration having been published after 3 years, is barred by law. 
The notification under Section 4(1) stands lapsed. Similar to the appellants, 
F 
several persons approached the High Court. The Full Bench in Balak Ram 
Gupta v. Union of India, C.W.P. No. 1639/85 decided on May 27, 1987 
upheld the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration 
under Section 6 on the ground that some of the land owners whose land 
was covered under the common notification under Section 4(1) had already 
approached the High Court and obtained stay of further proceedings 
G including publication of declaration under Section 6. As a consequence, 
the stay obtained continuing in operation stood excluded by operation of 
Explanation II to Section 6(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the declaration 
published under Section 6(1) was held valid in law. When the present writ 
petition had come up for hearing, the Division Bench of the High Court 
H passed an order stating that the controversy raised was covered by the 
AB HEY RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. v. U .O.I. 
933 
judgment of the Full Bench and no other point has been raised or argued A 
before the Division Bench. The Writ Petition has been dismissed. Thus this 
appeal by special leave. 
Shri Rajinder Sachhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the 
appellants, contends that the view taken by the Full Bench of the High 
Court is not correct in law. In view of the fact that the appellants had not 
obtained 

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