http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LICHHO DEVI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/09/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997 Present:                 Hon’ble Dr.Justice A.S.Anand                 Hon’ble Dr.Justice K.Venkataswami Ms.Madhu Tewatia,  Adv.  for  Ranbir  Yadav,  Adv.  for  the appellant Keshav Dayal,  Sr.Adv., R.K.Sainai,  Rishi Kesh,  Advs. with him for the Respondents.                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      The High  Court, after  hearing arguments in Civil Writ Petition filed  by the respondents held that since the Award had not  been made  within  the  period  stipulated  by  the statute   (Section   11A),   the   notification   concerning acquisition of Khasra Nos. 127 and 173 had to be declared to be of  no effect  and after  making that order, released the two Khasra  numbers from  the acquisition notifications vide order dated  22.8.1996. This  appeal  calls  that  order  in question.      The attention  of the  High Court had been drown to the stay order  dated 25.4.1985,  whereby during the pendency of the Writ  Petition, the dispossession of the petitioners had been stayed   by  the High  Court to  urge that  the  period during which  the stay  order was  in operation  had  to  be excluded for  computing the  prescribed period under Section 11A of  the Act.  According to  the High Court , however the order  dated   25.4.1985  concerned   only   the   stay   of dispossession of  the writ  petitioners and it could not, in any way  be  interpreted  to  imply  stay    of  acquisition proceedings. The  approach of  the High  Court is erroneous. This question  is no  longer res-integra.  In Government  of Tamil Nadu  & Anr. vs. Vasantha Bai ( 1995 (Supp.) 2 SCC 423 ), a Bench of this Court has held that the stay order of the type that  was granted  in the  instant case, tantamounts to stay of  further proceedings  being taken  and therefore the entire period  during which  the stay order was in operation was to  be excluded  while computing the period of two years prescribed for  making an  Award under  Section 11A the Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

The view  taken  by  the  High  Court,  is,  therefore,  not sustainable.      We, however,  find that  the High  Court has  not dealt with the  merits  of  the  writ  petition  and  quashed  the notification on  an erroneous  interpretation  of  the  stay order.  We,  therefore,  while  accepting  this  appeal  and setting aside  the order  of the High Court, remand the Writ Petition to  the  High  Court  for  its  fresh  disposal  in accordance with  law on  the other points raised in the writ petition. It  shall be open to the parties to raise all such pleas, as  are available  to them,  including the subsequent events during  the arguments  in the  High Court. We request the High  Court. We request the High Court to dispose of the writ  petition   expeditiously  and   not  to  construe  any observation made  by us  in this  order as  an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. No costs.