1. The facts and issue involved in the abovesaid appeals are identical and have to be decided in terms of our judgment passed today in Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014.
2. The appeals are dismissed in terms thereof. No order as to costs.
...….....…….……………………..J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) .......……………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR) .......……………………………J.
(M.Y. EQBAL) New Delhi, May 7, 2014 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4374 OF 2009 Union of India & Ors.
…. Appellants Versus Geeta Devi …. Respondent 1 O R D E R Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
In this case the facts are the same as contained in Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014, however, it may be mentioned herein that Shrimati Geeta Devi, the respondent, is the subsequent purchaser of the land sought to be acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act 1894’) and the original tenure holder had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act 1894, which have not been considered. The proceedings in this respect also had been quashed and admittedly, the actual and physical 2 possession of the land is with the respondent and as the proceedings had been quashed, the award had been made in 1987-1988. Thus, in substance the result would be the same as in Civil Appeal Nos. 5478- 5483 of 2014.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014. No order as to costs.
….....…….……………………..J (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) .......……………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR) .......……………………………J.
(M.Y. EQBAL) New Delhi, May 7, 2014 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1579 OF 2010 Vinod Kapur & Ors. ….
Appellants Versus Union of India & Ors. …. Respondents 1 O R D E R Dr. B.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 Land Acquisition 2 Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act 1894’) was made within the limitation prescribed under the Act.
2. The facts and circumstances which have arisen in this appeal are that the land, the subject matter of the appeal, stood 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 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 5A of the Act 1894 by the predecessor-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 3 1987-1988, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award in respect of the land.
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.
4. In view of the fact that the other land covered by the same notification and declaration had been the subject matter of various other writ petitions and particularly, the land belonging to one Geeta Devi, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4374 of 2009, the matter remained pending, thus, Review Petition etc. had been filed, which was dismissed on 27.7.2007.
5. It is evident from the orders passed by the High Court that it had granted stay of dispossession during the pendency of the writ petition as well as the review petition, though no interim order has been passed by this court. The respondent did not take possession of the land in dispute though award had 4 been made in the year 1987-1988, and the High Court had decided against the appellant in the year 2007. Thus, a period of 7 years has lapsed without any stay of proceedings and yet no action has been taken by the respondents in pursuance to the award.
6. However, keeping in view the decision rendered in C.A. Nos. 5478- 5483 of 2014, this appeal is allowed in terms thereof. No order as to costs.
….....…….…………………J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) .......……………………….J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR) .......………………………J.
(M.Y. EQBAL) New Delhi, May 7, 2014
-----------------------