1997 (4) TMI 498 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Land Acquisition Declaration Valid Despite Extended Period; Stay Orders Apply to All

SHRI ABHEY RAM & ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, despite exceeding the stipulated three-year ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Applicability of stay orders obtained by some landowners to others.3. Consideration of objections u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Summary:1. Validity of the declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:The primary contention was that the declaration u/s 6, published on June 7, 1985, was beyond the three-year period stipulated by the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, as the notification u/s 4(1) was published on November 5, 1980. The Full Bench in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India upheld the validity of the declaration, noting that the stay orders obtained by some landowners extended the period for the declaration under Explanation II to Section 6(1). The Supreme Court agreed with this view, stating that the stay orders in various writ petitions effectively extended the time for the declaration, making it valid.2. Applicability of stay orders obtained by some landowners to others:The appellants argued that since they had not obtained any stay, the declaration u/s 6 should be invalid for them. However, the Court held that the stay orders obtained by some landowners applied to all affected by the common notification u/s 4(1). The Court emphasized that in public interest litigation, the stay orders have a wider effect, benefiting all landowners affected by the notification, not just those who obtained the stay.3. Consideration of objections u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:The appellants contended that their objections u/s 5-A were not properly considered, similar to the writ petitioners in the Division Bench judgment. However, the Court noted that the appellants had not filed any objections before the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, there was no need to consider their objections. The Court also clarified that the benefit of the quashing of the declaration by the Division Bench was limited to the writ petitioners before it and did not extend to the appellants.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and confirming that the stay orders obtained by some landowners extended the period for the declaration, making it valid for all affected by the common notification. The Court also held that the appellants' failure to file objections u/s 5-A meant there was no need to consider their objections.