UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus PRAVEEN GUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 04-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
PRA VEEN GUPTA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 4, 1996 
[K RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Ss. 4(1), SA, 6(1) and 17(4)-Acquisition of land for shifting timber 
market under Master Plan of Delhi- 2001-Dispensing with the inquiry u/s. 
5-A-Exercise of power of urgency u/s. 17(4)-Held, the acquisition is valid 
in law and dispensing with the inquiry u/s. 5-A was justified-Mere mention 
in notification that land is likely to be needed for public purpose does not 
take away the power of the appropriate government to exercise the power of 
urgency under s. 17(4)-Declaration u/s. 6 stands restored. 
Limitation : 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Land Acquisition proceedings-Notifications under ss. 4( 1) and 6( 1) 
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 publishe~Writ petitions by land owners 
challenging the Notifications allowed by Single Judge of High Court-Delay 
in filing L.P A. by State before Division Bench of High Court-Division Bench E 
dismissing LP A, on the ground of delay-Delay caused due to inappropriate 
legal opinion-Held, delay was properly explained-High Court not justified 
in refusing to condone delay-Delay in filing the appeal condoned. 
Jai Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1996] 1 sec 9, relied on. p 
Narayan Govind Gavate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1977] 
1 sec 133, distinguished. 
Dora Phalavli v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1979] 4 sec 485 and State 
of Punjab & Anr. v. Gurdial Singh & Anr., [1980] 2 sec 471, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13228 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.92 of the Delhi High Court 
in L.P.A. No. 36/92 in W.P. No. 963 of 1989. 
H 
201 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
N.N. Goswami, B.K. Prasad and S.P. Singh for the Appellants. 
G.L. Sanghi, Subhash Mittal, M.K. Garg, V.B. Saharaya and R.K. 
Maheshwari for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
C Bench of the Delhi High Court made on July 14, 1992 in L.P.A. No 36/92 
dismissing the L.P.A. The learned single Judge had allowed the Writ 
Petition No. 936/89 on the ground that there was no justification for 
invoking the urgency clause in Section 17( 4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act'). Accordingly, the learned Single 
D Judge quashed the declaration under Section 6. The Division Bench dis-
missed the L.P A. on the ground that there was inordinate delay of more 
than 200 days in filing the appeal. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
When the matter had come up before us and the respondents 
pointed out that the land involved is only two bighas and, therefore, it is 
E not a case warranting interference. We directed the learned counsel for 
the Union of India to find out as to why they are insisting upon decision 
on merits. A statement was made by Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Additional 
Solicitor General that there are number of cases of the similar nature 
pending in the High Court awaiting the decision of this Court and, there-
fore, decision on merits was necessary. We accordingly set the case for 
F hearing on merits. The learned counsel for the parties have· filed their 
written submissions. 
We have heard Shri N.N. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the 
appellants and Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the respon-
G dents. The admitted position is that the notification under Section 4(1) of 
the Act was published on February 9, 1989 acquiring 1328 Bighas of land 
situated in Siraspur & Libaspur. The enquiry under Section SA was dis-
pensed with. Declaration under Section 6 was published on February 7, 
1990. The writ petition was filed on March 5, 1990. Two awards No. 8 and 
9 of 1991 came to be made on February 7, 1992 in respect of the land 
H except these two bighas of land which are subject matter in this case. Since 
U.0.1. v. P. GUPTA 
203 
the learned Judge had quashed the notification, two questions have been A 
raised and argued by the learned counsel for the parties. The first question 
relates to the delay in filing the L.P.A. It is seen that learned single Judge 
passed the order on March 5, 1990 and certified copy of the judgment was 
obtained by the counsel appearing for the Government on July 12, 1990 
; and a letter was addressed immediately on July 31, 1990 directing the 
Government pleader to f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.