2014 INSC 0463
                              SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                          Vinod Kapur

                                                Vs.

                             Respondent: Union of India (UOI)

                                     C.A.No.1579 of 2010

         (Balbir Singh Chauhan, Jasti Chelameswar and M. Yusuf Eqbal JJ.)

                                           07.05.2014

                                             ORDER

BALBIR SINGH 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 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 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 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.