M/S. DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD & Anr. v. STATE OF U.P & Anr.

:

The four legal questions as· framed are answered as follows: F A. Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no application to the acquisition proceedings conducted under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. Once the acquired land has vested in the G Government in terms of Section 16 or 17(1) of the Act, possession of which has already been taken, such land is incapable of being re-vested or reverted to the owners/persons interested therein, for lack of any statutory provision for the same under the Act. H B. The provisions of Section 17(3A) of the Act, on their bare reading, suggest that the said provision is mandatory but, as no consequences of default have been prescribed by the Legislature in that provision, thus, it would hardly be permissible for the Court to the said provision any drastic consequences much lapsing of entire acquisition proceedings. Default in complying with provisions of Section 17(3A) cannot result in invalidating or vitiating the entire acquisition proceedings, particularly when the possession of the acquired land has been taken and it has vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. C. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act, the provisions of Section 17 of the Act can be construed strictly but such interpretation must be coupled with the doctrine of literal and contextual interpretation, while ensuring that the object of the legislation is not defeated by such an interpretation. Strict compliance to the conditions contemplated under Section 17 of the Act should be given effect to but within the framework of the statute, without making any additions to the language of the section. D. Once the righ.t to property ceases to be a Fundamental Right after omission of Articles 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, the addition of Articles 31A and 300A by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978, cannot place the legal right to property at the same pedestal to that of a fundamental right falling under Chapter Ill of the Constitution. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The rights of the citizens and interest of the State can be balanced under the provisions of the Act, without any violation of the Constitutional mandate. [Para 82) [323-E-H; 324-A-G] DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 203

The reasons for taking different view are as A ' · follows: (i) The ratio decidendi of the judgment of this Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain is squarely applicable to the instant case, on facts and law. 8 Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2517 = (1993) 4 SCC 369 - followed. (ii) From the facts recorded, it is clear that within the prescribed period, the payments were deposited with c the State office of the Collector/co~petent authority and it was for the State to distribute the money in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not only the scheme of the Act but also an established practice that the amounts are disbursed by the 0 Collector to the claimants and not directly by the beneficiary, for whose benefit the land had been acquired. The beneficiary had discharged its obligation by depositing, in fact, in excess of 80 per cent of due compensation with the competent E authority. De hors the approach that one may adopt in regard to the interpretation of Section 17(3A), on facts the notification is incapable of being invalidated for non-compliance of the said Section. (iii) The doctrine of strict construction does not per F se mandate that its application excludes the simultaneous application of all other principles of interpretation. It is permissible in law to apply the rule of strict construction while reading the provisions of law contextually or even purposively. The golden rule G of interpretation is the rule of plain language, while preferring the interpretation which furthers the cause of the Statute rather than that which defeats the objects or purposes of the Act. H A

ORDER G In view of the divergence of opinion on conclusions and also on various legal questions discussed in two separate judgments by us, the matter is required to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger Bench to resolve the divergent views expressed in both the judgments and to answer the questions of law framed. H N.J. Matter Referred to Larger Bench.