TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proached the High Court. The Full Bench in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India, [C.W.P. No.1639/85 decided on May 27,1987] upheld the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 on the ground that some of the land owners whose land was covered under the common notification under Section 4(1) had already approached the High Court and obtained stay of further proceedings including publication of declaration under Section 6. As a consequence, the stay obtained continuing in operation stood excluded by operation of Explanation II to Section 6(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the declaration published under Section 6(1) was held valid in law. When the present writ petition had come up for hearing, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an order stating that the controversy raised was covered by the judgment of the full Bench and no other point has been raised or argued before the Division Bench. The writ petition has been dismissed. Thus this appeal by special leave. Shri Rajinder Sachhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court is not correct in law. In view of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e benefit to other persons under Explanation II to Section 6? It is seen that notification under Section 4(1) is a common notification with reference to all the lands situated in 12 villages. The Full Bench has noted in Paragraph 6 as under : 6. In the cases before us, the declaration under S. 6 were made on 27.5.1985 ,6.6.1985,7.6.1985 and 26.2.1986 (the individual details of which need not be set out here). This is clearly beyond a period of three years from the dates of the notifications under S.4, viz. 5.11.1980 and 25.11.1980. They are clearly barred by limitation under the proviso t o S. 6(1) unless the period can be got extended by invoking the terms of the explanation newly substituted in 1984 (which is the attempt of the respondents here). It has extracted the various orders passed by the Court from time to time in paragraphs 20,21 and 22 which reads as under: 20. It may be useful here to refer to the stay orders which the respondents rely on to bring the S. 6 declarations within the scope of the explanation. In Munni Lal v. Lt. Governor (CW 426 of 1981) wherein the validity of the notification dated 25.11.1980 was challenged by certain residents of village ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor (CW 1250/81). These writ petitions were also disposed of on 15.11.83. But this list is not exhaustive and it appears, there are other writ petitions pending in this court today in which the stay order passed continues to be in force (e.g. CW 861/82). 22. Reference has also been made on behalf of the petitioners to certain orders in CW 1203/82 (Budh Vihar Welfare Society v. Lt. Governor), though that was a writ petition which challenged the validity of a S.4 notification dated 31.12.1981. In that case, the Court had granted an interim order on 23.4.82 restraining the respondents from taking further proceedings in consequence of the impugned notification and this was apparently, later made absolute till disposal of the writ petition. The Petitioner thereafter moved C.M.315/84 on 24.1.1984 alleging that the respondents are misinterpreting the aforesaid stay order and are saying that the aforesaid stay order is in respect of the entire village of Rithala and praying, therefore, that as the petitioners had prayed for stay only in respect of their lands, the court should be please to clarify the order dated 23.4.1982 to the effect that the stay is only in respect of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is not inter parties simpliciter : It is a public interest litigation which affects wider interests. The grounds of challenge to the notification may be nothing personal to the particular landholder but are, more often than not, grounds common to all or substantial blocks of the land owners. In fact, this group of petitions now listed before us raise practically same contentions just as the previous batch of writ petition challenging the notifications under S.4 raised certain common contentions. To accept the contention that the challenges and their lands would virtually provide persons with common interests with a second innings. If the initial challenge succeeds, all of them benefit; and, if for some reason that fails and the second challenge succeeds on a ground like the one presently raised, the first batch of petitioners also get indirectly benefited because of the impossibility of partial implementation of the scheme for which the acquisition is intended, 31. We have, therefore, to give full effect to the language of the section and the stay orders in question, in the above context and background. The use of the Word any in the explanation considerably am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... {1989) Delhi Law Times 150] are obvious with reference to the quashing of the publication of the declaration under section 6 vis-a-vis the writ petitioners therein. The question thus arise for consideration is: whether the stay obtained by some of t he persons who prohibited the respondents from publication of the declaration under section 6 would equally be extendible to the cases relating to the appellants? We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters are disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat Anr. [(1991) 4 SCC 531], Hansraj Jain v. state of Maharashtra Ors. [1993 (4) JT 360], Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 145], Gandhi G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch confined the controversy to the quashing of the declaration under Section 6 in respect of the persons qua the writ petitioners before the Division Bench. Therefor, the benefit of the quashing of the declaration under Section 6 by the Division Bench does not enure to the appellants. It is true that a Bench of this Court has considered the effect of such a quashing in Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh Ors. etc. reported in [45(1991) Delhi Law Times 602 (sc)]. But, unfortunately, in that case the operative part of the judgment referred to earlier has not been brought to t he notice of this Court. Therefore, the ratio therein has no application to the facts in this case. It is also true that in Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya s case (supra), this court had also observed that it would enure the benefit to those petitioners. In view of the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) is a composite on e and equally the declaration under Section 6 is also a composite one, unless the declaration under Section 6 is quashed in toto, it does not operate as if that the entire declaration requires to be quashed. It is seen that the appellants had not filed any objections to the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
