The legal landscape surrounding stay orders in land acquisition proceedings is intricate and vital in determining possession rights. This blog delves into the nuances of court judgments and the implications they hold, shedding light on the intricate legal analysis involved in such cases.
Facts
- Various writ petitions were filed challenging the Section 6 notification of the Act on the grounds of publication after the time limit provided by Central Act No 68 of 1984.
- The notification pertained to lands in Village Chattarpur, Satbari Maidangarhi, Sayoorpur, and Rajpur Khurd.
- A direction was given for the physical handover of land to the owners upon depositing the compensation amount disbursed to them with interest.
- The High Court, in a judgment dated 27.5.1987, held that the stay of dispossession in a writ petition is to be considered for determining the period of three years in publication of the notification.
- The Division Bench decided writ petitions on 14.10.1988 with reasons to follow, and later on 18.11.1988, set aside the notification as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing or heard in objections filed by land owners.
- In another case, a status quo order was passed on 29.10.1985 and ultimately the writ petition was allowed on 6.12.1990 quashing the acquisition notification.
- Subsequent judgments clarified that the entire acquisition proceedings do not stand quashed, and referred to specific cases like Abhey Ram and Gurdip Singh Uban.
- The High Court quashed the notification under Section 6 of the Act in certain cases like Balbir Singh and Gurdeep Singh Uban.
- However, there were instances where the operative parts of judgments were not brought to the notice of the Court, leading to further clarifications and decisions by higher benches.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Compensation for Fatal Accident
Arguments
- Mr. Bansal argued that there is no provision for exclusion of time in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act based on stay in another writ petition.
- It was contended that the period of stay can be excluded for publication of notification under Section 6 or announcing the award, but not after the award.
- The argument was made that stay in writ petitions by other land owners cannot be used by the State to exclude such period for the land owners in question.
- The award was announced on 5.6.1987 and an interim order in favor of the land owners was passed on 9.7.1999.
- The concept of Casus Omissus was highlighted, stating that further words should not be included in the statute.
- The period of five years had not expired before the commencement of the 2013 Act on 1.1.2014.
- Reference was made to the principle that a judgment is an authority for what it decides, not what follows from it (obiter dictum and ratio decidendi).
- There was uncertainty regarding the status of acquisition proceedings due to stays or setting aside of the notification under Section 6 of the Act.
- For 12 years since the award, there was no stay from the Court or the statutory provision granting stay under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- It was argued that the State taking possession on different dates implies that stays were not a deterrent for the appellant to take possession of the acquired land.
Also Read: Judicial Review of Search and Seizure Authorization
Analysis
- In the judgment reported as Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors., the review was dismissed on 24-11-1999.
- Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. was further affirmed by this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh.
- The judgments in Balbir Singh and Gurdeep Singh Uban were examined by this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors.
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others held that the conditions of failure to take possession or payment of compensation can lead to the lapse of notification under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- The High Court in Gurdip Singh Uban relied upon Sudan Singh to hold that the notification under Section 6 of the Act stands quashed.
- In Om Prakash v. Union of India and Others, the appeals of land owners who had not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act were dismissed.
- Union of India v. Shiv Raj dismissed the appeals arising out of Chatro Devi based on the majority view of the High Court regarding objections.
- The matter in Chatro Devi v. Union of India was referred to a 3 Judge who held that objection proceedings should comply with principles of natural justice.
- In Manohar Lal Atree v. Union of India & Ors., the challenge was to the acquisition of land situated in Village Satbari.
- The State could not take possession based on the notification under Section 6, leading to the award on 05.06.1987, as the acquisition itself stood quashed.
- There was no stay during the period between the award and the stay granted in favor of the landowner, resulting in the acquisition proceedings being considered as not having a stay-free period before the 2013 Act came into force.
- Various writ petitions were filed by the landowners leading to interim orders of stay against dispossession, which continued even after the enactment of the 2013 Act.
- The land in question was subject to multiple legal challenges and interim orders of stay, preventing the acquiring authority from taking possession.
- The High Court’s orders and judgments played a crucial role in determining the possession and acquisition proceedings, leading to a complex legal situation.
- Prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, there was no stay-free period of 5 years leading to a declaration of proceedings as lapsed.
- Notifications under Section 6 of the Act were quashed on 15.5.1989 and 17.12.1996, but were set aside in Gurdip Singh Uban-I and II.
- An order of stay of dispossession was granted in favor of the landowner on 27.9.1999.
- Setting aside of notification under Section 6 prevented the State from taking possession due to High Court orders.
Also Read: Land Acquisition Compensation Legal Analysis
Decision
- High Court order set aside
- Writ petition filed by land owners dismissed
- Appeal allowed
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHRI SUNIL KHATRI (2022 INSC 601)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003862-003862 / 2022
