Prem Singh and Another vs Union Territory and Another

M.M. Kumar, J.—This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14685, 14686 of 1998, 16124 of 1998 and 8039 of 2005 as common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions.

The petitioners have claimed by filing these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution that notification dated 31.1.1992 (Annexure P-1) issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ''the Act'') as also declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act on 29.1.1993 (Annexure P.2) be quashed. A further prayer has also been made for quashing subsequent notices dated 31.8.1998 issued u/s 9 of the Act (Annexures P.3 and 3A). The principal ground taken in the petition is that the respondents have not announced the award within the stipulated period of two years as per the requirement of Section 11A of the Act. It has also been pleaded that in any case no permission from the competent authority before an announcement of the award was obtained.

In the written statement filed by the respondents the stand taken is that there is no delay in announcement of the award, dated 5.3.2003, as the proceedings were stayed by this Court in various petitions. The detail of all those petitions has been mentioned by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 14.12.2006, rendered in C.W.P. No. 11352 of 2004 - Kailash Wati v. Union of India 2007(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 29 (P&H) which is as under:

S. Dates Particulars No. 1. 31.01.1992 Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. 2. 29.01.1993 Notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued. 3. 12.02.1993 Notification u/s 6 of the Act was published. 4. 13.02.1993 No stay i.e. for 11 days (A) to 23.02.1993 5. 24.02.1993 Stay in C.W.P. No. 2126 of 1993 was granted. 6. 22.09.1995 C.W.P. No. 2126 of 1993 was dismissed by Divisional Bench by passing a detailed order. 7. 23.09.1995 No stay i.e. in the year 1995 = 110 days to in the year 1996 = 365 days. 02.07.1997 In the year 1997 = 183 days 658 days (B). 8. 03.07.1997 Stay in C.W.P. No. 4433 of 1996 was granted 9. 11.08.1997 C.W.P. No. 4433 of 1996 was allowed by short order without considering the earlier order passed in C.W.P. No. 2126 of 1993 (supra). Therefore Review Application No. 244 of 1998 was filed wherein delay was condoned and the Review Application was heard on merits. 10. 31.10.2003 Review application No. 244 of 1998 was allowed and thereby C.W.P. 4433 of 1996 alongwith bunch of petitions were dismissed. Again C.M. No. 7175 of 2003 was filed in C.W.P. No. 4433 of 1996 taking the new plea of the proceedings being lapsed because of the expiry of two years period after publication of the notification u/s 6 of the Act 11. 01.04.2003 C.M. No. 7175 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn. 12. 06.02.2003 Notice u/s 9 of the Act was issued and objections were invited upto 28.2.2003. 13. 05.03.2003 Award was made and pronounced. 14. 01.02.2003 No stay i.e. for 32 days (C) to 14.03.2003 ---------------------------------------------- 15. Total of 11 + 658 + 32 = 701 days (A+B+C) ----------------------------------------------

The respondents have further pleaded that Kail ash Wati''s case (supra) and many other writ petitions have already been dismissed involving the same notification either in respect of this very pocket of land or in the respect of another pocket of land for which notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on the same day as there was common purpose contemplated, namely, development of residential-cum-commercial complex and for construction of College Building and Sports Stadium.

Shri K.K. Gupta and Ms. Lisa Gill, learned Counsel for the respondents, however argued that this Court in the case of Devinder Kumar and Others Vs. Union Territory and Others, and Kailash Wati (supra), has categorically held that there is no delay in announcing the award when the period of stay order in terms of Explanation appended to Section 11A of the Act is taken into account. They have further submitted that all the arguments were earlier raised and have been rejected. In that regard a reference has been made to the views taken in Devinder Kumar''s case (supra) wherein the Division Bench rejected the argument that even if the stay has been granted to declaration u/s 6 of the Act, issued on the same day in respect of land comprised in pocket no.8 or pocket No. 6 the stay order would be deemed to have operated in both and that there are findings that award was announced u/s 11 of the Act within the stipulated period. Learned Counsel have further submitted that prior permission of the Advisor was obtained before announcement of the award on 5.3.2003. In that regard they have produced the original record for our perusal. Learned Counsel has pointed that against the Division Bench Judgment rendered in the cases of C.W.P. No. 10297 and 10580 of 1997 decided on 4.8.1998, SLP bearing Nos. 974-975 of 1999 Puran Chand Gupta v. Union of India involving the same acquisition, were preferred, which were dismissed on 1.2.1999.

We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel and are of the view that this Court has already considered in detail the acquisition involved in these petitions. In that regard reliance has been correctly placed on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Kailash Wati (supra) After noticing number of writ petitions filed in this Court to which reliance has been placed by a Division Bench in Kailash Wati''s case (supra), it was held as under:

A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that further proceedings had been stayed between the period 24.2.1993 to 31.1.2003 except for a period of 701 days. Thus, if the period during which stay was operating is excluded then the award would be deemed to have been passed within a period of two years and would not be hit by the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. In Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that the period during which the stay order was operative has to be excluded. In Devinder Kumar and Others Vs. Union Territory and Others, a Division Bench of this Court has held as under:

The moment the Court grants stay, it becomes impracticable and if not impossible to execute the scheme for the�land stands notified for acquisition and everything comes to a standstill. It was for that precise reason that it was held by the Apex Court and this Court that period for which the stay remained in vogue should be excluded from computing the period of limitation and it is wholly immaterial whether or not a particular individual had obtained stay qua acquisition of his land or not.

It is, thus, held that the award passed in the present case is not violative of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act.

The other argument that period of stay cannot be excluded if the stay order was granted in respect of one pocket of land by a different notification of the same day, the Division Bench in Devinder Kumar''s case (supra) has rejected the submission by observing as under:

The public purpose mentioned in both the notifications is for development of residential-cum-commercial complex and for the construction of a college building and sports stadium etc. by the Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh. This Court is-of the considered view that the underlined idea of excluding the period for which stay remained in vogue in computing the period of limitation for issuing declaration u/s 6 or computing the acquisition proceedings is though by virtue of stay granted by this Court, the concerned authorities could not possibly proceed to finally acquire the land to put it to the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. The moment the court grants stay, it becomes impracticable and if not impossible to execute the scheme for the land stands notified for acquisition and everything comes to a standstill. It was for that precise reason that it was held by the Apex Court and this Court that period for which the stay remained in vogue should be excluded from computing the period of limitation as it is wholly immaterial whether or not a particular individual had obtained stay qua acquisition of his land or not. Even in the judgment that has been stayed by the learned Counsel representing the petitioner, the Apex Court had proceeded on assumption that the petitioners of that case had not obtained any stay but in as much others who are equally affected and challenged the very notifications as were challenged by the petitioners of that case had obtained stay, the notifications issued u/s 4 and 6 were upheld. In view of what has been stated above, even if it is assumed that the present notification pertains to pocket No. 8 in which stay was granted and reference of which has been made above, it would make the least different. As mentioned above, notifications were issued on the same day and so were follow up declaration and purpose for the acquired land could not be achieved if stay was granted though pertaining to pocket No. 8 or pocket No. 6. The purpose by virtue of issuance of two separate identical notifications could not be achieved, if stay was granted in any of the notifications either pertaining to pocket No. 8 or pocket No. 6.

We also, do not find any substance in the other argument that no permission in terms of requirement of Section 11A of the Act was obtained from the competent authority. A perusal of the original records produced before us, shows that draft award was prepared and put up before the Advisor for approval. The Advisor had signed the draft award on 28.2.2003 and thereafter the award was announced on 5.3.2003. It may be true that there is slight variation in the amount of award. The draft award for Rs. 3,31,49,856/- was approved to be announced by the competent authority but the award announced was of grand total of Rs. 3,37,12,994/-. The variation is merely an irregularity and cannot be considered such an illegality as it would vitiate the award or the acquisition proceedings. Moreover, number of writ petitions stands already dismissed, which includes Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10297 and 10589 of 1997, decided on 5.8.1998 and Devinder Kumar''s case (supra) and Kailash Wati''s case (supra). There is thus no merit in all these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of every connected case.