Land acquisition and rehabilitation limits: broad public purpose upheld, but one acquisition lapsed for missing the Section 11A award deadline.

Land acquired for the declared public purpose of planned development of Delhi could not be challenged merely because the work was later undertaken through the International Airport Authority of India; the broad public purpose covered airport development, Chapter VII was not attracted, and the challenge was also barred by constructive res judicata. No enforceable right to alternative industrial land arose, because the record showed only rehabilitation consideration for displaced villagers and no binding governmental decision or scheme for relocation of industrial units. On the Section 11A issue, the SC held that the award had to be made within the statutory period and that no extra exclusion could be imported from the Limitation Act; the acquisition therefore lapsed in that appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether acquisition of land notified for planned development of Delhi could be assailed on the ground that it was later utilised for airport development through the International Airport Authority of India and thus attracted Chapter VII requirements; (ii) whether the appellants had any enforceable right to allotment of alternative land for rehabilitation of their industrial units; and (iii) whether the acquisition in one appeal had lapsed for failure to make the award within the period prescribed by Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act.

Issue (i): whether acquisition of land notified for planned development of Delhi could be assailed on the ground that it was later utilised for airport development through the International Airport Authority of India and thus attracted Chapter VII requirements.

Analysis: The notification under Section 4 declared the public purpose as planned development of Delhi. The stated public purpose was wide enough to include development and expansion of the airport. The International Airport Authority of India came into existence later, so the acquisition was not for that authority as a company at the time of notification. The later entrustment of development work to another governmental agency did not change the public purpose. Chapter VII was therefore not attracted. The Court also accepted that the challenge was barred by constructive res judicata because the relevant facts were within knowledge when earlier proceedings were filed.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Chapter VII failed and was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the appellants had any enforceable right to allotment of alternative land for rehabilitation of their industrial units.

Analysis: The material on record showed consideration of rehabilitation for displaced villagers from Nangal Dewat for residential purposes, but it did not show any final government decision or framed scheme for relocation of industrial units. The minutes and correspondence relied upon by the appellants did not create a binding promise to provide industrial relocation plots. The scheme, where one existed, was limited to residential rehabilitation of affected villagers, and the Court declined to convert policy discussions into a legal entitlement to alternative industrial land.

Conclusion: No enforceable right to alternative industrial land was made out, and this claim failed.

Issue (iii): whether the acquisition in one appeal had lapsed for failure to make the award within the period prescribed by Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act.

Analysis: The declaration under Section 6 had been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, so the award had to be made within two years from that commencement, subject only to exclusion of the period during which further action was stayed by the court. The Court held that Section 11A did not permit importing the exclusion applicable to obtaining a certified copy under the Limitation Act. The statute itself expressly provided a different exclusion in Section 11A, and the Court could not add another. On the facts, even after excluding the period of stay, the award was made beyond the permissible period.

Conclusion: The acquisition lapsed in that appeal because the award was barred by limitation under Section 11A.

Final Conclusion: The common challenge to the acquisition and claim for industrial rehabilitation was rejected, but the appeal raising the Section 11A limitation point succeeded and the acquisition was held to have lapsed in that matter.

Ratio Decidendi: Land acquired for a declared public purpose may later be utilised through another governmental agency or for another public purpose within the same broad public purpose, but a statutory limitation period for making an award cannot be enlarged by judicially importing exclusions not provided by the special statute.

---