VINOD KAPUR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 778 · Decided: 07-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014) 8 S.C.R. 778 
VINOD KAPUR & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1579 of 2010) 
MAY 7, 2014 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.4 - Land in question 
C notified u/s. 4 on 25. 11. 1980 - The other persons whose land 
had also been acquired by the same notification had 
challenged the validity of the notification u/s. 4 of Act 1894 by 
filing the writ petitions and its validity was upheld - Appellant 
is subsequent purchaser - In the year 1987-1988, the Land 
D Acquisition Officer made an award in respect of the land - Writ 
petition of appellant dismissed - State Authority did not take 
possession of the land in dispute though award wa~ made in 
the year 1987-1988, and the High Court had decided against 
the appellant in review petition in the year 2007 - A period of 
E 7 years has lapsed without any stay of proceedings and yet 
no action was taken by the State Authority in pursuance to the 
award - Held: Keeping in view the decision rendered in C.A. 
Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014, land owner's appeal is allowed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
F 1579 of 2010. 
G 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2004 in Civil 
Writ Petition No. 745of1987 and dated 27.07.2007 in Review 
Petition No. 328 of 2005 of the High Court of Delhi. 
P. P. Malhotra, ASG, J. S. Attri, Geeta Luthra, Sanjay 
Poddar, Vinay Bhasin, Mukul Rohatgi, Gopal Jain, Shyam 
Divan, A. Sharan, Sandeep Bajaj, Siddharth Panda, D. S. 
Mahra, Anshuman Nayak, Shadman Ali, Gaurav Sharma, 
778 
VINOD KAPUR v. UNION OF INDIA 
779 
Chetan Chawla, Govind Kumar, Sonia Malhotra, Priyanka 
A 
Bharihoke, Yasir Rauf, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Kr. Dhayarii, D. 
N. Goburdhan, Narendra Goyal, Naina Dubey, Rohit Bhardwaj, 
Anil Katiyar, H. S. Raina, Bhargava V. Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra, 
B 
R. N. Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawala, Ruby Singh Ahuja, 
Krishna Hariani, Rohit Sharma, Aakanksha Munjhal, 
Karanjawala & Co., S. S. Khanduja, Archana Sharma, 
Meenakshi Kalra, Shobha, Yash Pal Dhingra, Indra Sawhney, 
Simran Mehta, Arvind Minocha, Veena Minocha, Sumit Bansal, 
Ateev Mathur, Richa Oberoi, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Pankaj 
Gupta, Anusuya Salwan, S. Janani, Kunal Kohli, G. Umapathy, c 
Rakesh 
K. 
Sharma, 
Venkatasubramanian, 
S. 
Ramasubramanian, R. Mekhala, P. V. Yogeswaran, Manish 
Kumar, Amit Kumar, Piyush Kaushik, N. S. Vasisht, Gagan 
Gupta, Ateev P. Mathur, Vishnu B. Saharya (for Saharya & Co.), 
for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been 
preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 
17.12.2004 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ 
Petition No. 745 of 1987 and impugned judgment and order 
dated 27.7.2007 passed in Review Petition No.328 of 2005 
filed by the appellant wherein the court held that the declaration 
under Section 6 of the Lan~ Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Act 1894') was made within the limitation 
prescribed under the Act. 
D 
E 
F 
2. The facts and circumstances which have arisen in this 
appeal are that the land, the subject matter of the appeal, stood 
G 
notified under Section 4 of the Act 1894 on 25.11.1980. The 
other persons whose land had also been acquired by the same 
notification had challenged the validity of the notification under 
Section 4 of Act 1894 by filing the writ petitions and its validity 
was upheld by the judgment and order dated 15.11.1983. It was 
H 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8-S.C.R. 
A during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings that the 
present appellant had purchased the land vide registered sale 
deeds dated 6.5.1985 and 24.5.1985. In respect of the same 
land, the Land Acquisition Collector submitted a report on 
4.6.1985 on the objections made under Section SA of the Act 
B 1894 by the Ji>redecessor-in-interest and the same was 
accepted by the Lt. Governor of Delhi and the declaration under 
Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 7.6.1985. In the year 
1987-1988, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award in 
respect of the land. 
c 
3. In respect of the same land covered by the same 
notification, various orders in various litigations pending before 
the High Court had been passed. The writ petition filed by the 
present appellant was dismissed vide impugned judgment and 
order dated 17 .12 .2004. 
D 
4. In view of the fact that the other land covered by the 
same notification and declara

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