REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3072-73 OF 2004

Shanta Talwar & Anr.      …. Appellants

Versus

Union of India & Ors.    …. Respondents WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3199 OF 2008

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3200 OF 2008

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. Since  all  these  appeals  involve  identical  issues,  we  

propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common  

judgment and order.

2. All these appeals are directed against the judgments and  

orders passed by the High Court of Delhi, whereby the  

High Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the

appellants  herein.  The  Writ  Petition  Nos.  WP(C)  8440-

43/2003; 2329/04 and 2786/04 filed by Pawan Singh &  

Ors.;  Shanta  Talwar  and  Diwan  Chand,  respectively,  

were dismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High  

Court  by  its  common  judgment  and  order  dated  

07.04.2004, whereas, the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 716/08  

filed by Neera Jain and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 573/08,  

in which Veena Kapuria was the second Petitioner, were  

dismissed  by  a  common  judgment  and  order  dated  

11.04.2008  passed  by  another  Division  Bench  of  the  

High Court of Delhi.  

3. For the sake of brevity and convenience we propose to  

take the facts of the case in the Writ Petitions filed by  

Pawan Singh & Ors.; Shanta Talwar and Diwan Chand  

challenging the acquisition proceedings of their lands for  

the construction of Prem Nagar Station, which is a part  

of Mass Rapid Transit System [for short ‘MRTS’], which is  

a project undertaken by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation  

[for short ‘DMRC’]. The aforesaid land was sought to be  

acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the  

Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894 [for  short  ‘the  LA  Act’]  on  

2

16.10.2003,  but  by  the  aforesaid  notification,  urgency  

provision under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of  

the LA Act was also invoked dispensing with the enquiry  

inviting objections under Section 5-A of the LA Act, which  

was followed by issuance of Declaration under Section 6  

and notice under Section 9 on 11.11.2003. There is no  

dispute with regard to the fact that the possession of the  

land was also taken by the DMRC on 24.12.2003 and  

thereafter construction of the metro station was started,  

which also  stand completed as  of  now.  An award was  

passed  in  respect  of  the  aforesaid  land  by  the  Land  

Acquisition Collector on 17.09.2004. Smt. Shanta Talwar  

and other appellants received the compensation as fixed  

by the Collector.  

4. The  Parliament  of  India,  in  the  year  1978  had  also  

enacted another legislation, namely, the Metro Railways  

(Construction of Works) Act, 1978 [for short ‘the Metro  

Railways  Act’]  which  also  contains  the  provisions  for  

acquisition of land required for specific purpose, namely,  

for  the  construction  of  Metro  Railways  or  other  works  

connected therewith, like: -  

3

(a) make  or  construct  in,  upon,  across,  under  or  over any lands, buildings, streets, roads, railways  or  tramways  or  any  rivers,  canals,  brooks,  streams  or  other  waters  or  any  drains,  water- pipes, gas-pipes, electric lines or telegraph lines,  such  temporary  or  permanent  inclined  planes,  arches,  tunnels,  culverts,  embankments,  aqueducts,  bridges,  ways  or  passages,  as  the  metro railway administration thinks proper;

(b) alter  the  course  of  any  rivers,  canals,  brooks,  streams  or  water-courses  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  tunnels,  passages  or  other  works  over  or  under  them and divert  or  alter  as  well  temporarily  as  permanently,  the  course  of  any  rivers, cannals, brooks, streams or water-courses  or  any  drains,  water-pipes,  gas-pipes,  electric  lines or telegraph lines or raise or sink the level  thereof  in order the more conveniently to carry  them  over  or  under,  as  the  metro  railway  administration thinks proper;

(c) make drains or conduits into, through or under,  any  lands  adjoining  the  metro  railway  for  the  purpose of conveying water from or to the metro  railway;

(d) erect  or  construct  such  houses,  warehouses,  offices  and  other  buildings  and  such  yards,  stations,  engines,  machinery,  apparatus  and  other  works  and  conveniences,  as  the  metro  railways administration thinks proper;

(e) alter, repair or discontinue such buildings, works  and conveniences  as  aforesaid  or  any of  them,  and substitute others in their stead;

(f) draw,  make  or  conduct  such  maps,  plans,  surveys  or  tests,  as  the  metro  railway  administration thinks property;

(g) do  all  other  acts  necessary  for  making,  maintaining, altering or repairing and using the  metro railway;

4

However,  in  the  said  Writ  Petitions  filed  by  Pawan  

Singh & Ors.; Shanta Talwar and Diwan Chand, the lands  

were acquired by the State Government under the LA Act  

for the establishment of Prem Nagar MRTS Station at the  

request of DMRC and not under the Metro Railways Act.  

5. Two Civil Appeals are also filed against the dismissal of  

two other Writ Petitions, viz., the Writ Petition (Civil) No.  

716/08 filed by Neera Jain and Writ Petition (Civil) No.  

573/08,  in  which  Veena  Kapuria  was  the  second  

Petitioner,  which  were  registered  as  Civil  Appeal  Nos.  

3200/08  and  3199/08,  respectively.  The  said  cases  

involved  lands  which  were  acquired  by  issuing  a  

notification dated 10.08.2007 under Section 4 of the LA  

Act. Declaration was also issued in the said cases under  

Section  6  by  issuing  a  notification  on  01.11.2007  

followed  by  the  notice  under  Section  9  issued  on  

01.11.2007.  Not  only  possession  of  the  said  land  was  

taken but  also  award was passed  on 30.10.2010.  The  

records disclose that some of the appellants in the said  

cases have also received the compensation.  

5

6. Be that as it may, in all these appeals possession of land  

in question has already been taken and the purpose for  

which the land was acquired has also been completed/  

achieved.

7. Contentions raised by all the appellants herein are that  

in view of the provisions of the Metro Railways Act, which  

is applicable to the city of Delhi, the land for the purpose  

of construction of Metro Railway could and should only  

be acquired under the provisions of the said Act and not  

under the provisions of the LA Act. Counsel appearing for  

the appellants reinforced their arguments by contending  

inter  alia that  no  acquisition  on  behalf  of  the  Metro  

Railways could be made under the general law, i.e., LA  

Act,  as  a  special  legislation  called  the  Metro  Railways  

(Construction of  Works)  Act,  1978 was enacted by the  

Parliament with the specific purpose and object of speedy  

and  adequate  acquisition  of  land  by  the  Central  

Government.  It  was  contended  that  in  view  of  the  

enactment and aforesaid special Act of 1978, which is a  

complete  and  self-contained  code  providing  for  

acquisition  of  land  solely  for  the  purposes  of  Metro  

6

Railways, applicability of the LA Act for the purpose of  

Metro  Railways  should  be  deemed  to  be  impliedly  

repealed.

8. It was further contended by the counsel appearing for the  

appellants  that  the  Metro  Railways  Act,  which  is  a  

specific law on the subject, having specifically excluded  

incorporation of any law in the nature of Section 17(1)  

and 17(4) of the LA Act, which provides for dispensation  

of the enquiry as envisaged under Section 5-A of the LA  

Act,  the  respondents  acted  illegally  and  without  

jurisdiction  in  taking  resort  to  the  said  urgency  

provisions of the LA Act for the purpose of acquisition of  

land  of  the  appellants,  particularly,  when  there  is  no  

such provision in the Metro Railways Act for dispensation  

of  such  enquiry  and  providing  for  an  opportunity  of  

raising objections by the appellants with regard to very  

act of acquisiton.  

9. The aforesaid  submission of  the  counsel  appearing  for  

the appellants were countered by the counsel appearing  

for the respondents contending inter alia that despite the  

7

fact  that  there  is  an Act  called  Metro  Railways  Act  in  

operation,  yet the respondents are  not  denuded of  the  

power  of  invoking  the  provisions  of  the  LA  Act  which  

empowers the respondents to acquire land for the public  

purpose, i.e., construction of MRTS projects in the cases  

at  hand.  In  support  of  the  said  contention  counsel  

appearing for the respondents relied upon the decisions  

of this Court in the case of Rajinder Kishan Gupta and  

Anr. V. Union of India and Ors. reported at  (2010) 9  

SCC 46  and also on the decision of this Court in  S.S.  

Darshan  v.  State  of  Karnataka  and  Ors. reported  at  

(1996) 7 SCC 302.

10.We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties  

who  have  elaborately  taken  us  through  the  entire  

records.  

11. In  view  of  the  ever  increasing  demand  of  urban  

population  in  Delhi,  the  existing  service  transport  

facilities were found to be inadequate and, therefore, a  

decision was taken by the Government for having a Mass  

Rapid  Transit  System.  To  undertake  the  said  project  

8

DMRC was incorporated as a company under the Indian  

Companies Act. Thereafter, for the purpose of operation  

and  maintenance  of  the  Metro  Railways  in  Delhi,  an  

Ordinance was promulgated in 2002 by the President of  

India  called  ‘the  Delhi  Metro  Railway  (Operation  and  

Maintenance)  Ordinance,  2002’  which was  replaced by  

an Act of Parliament, viz., Delhi Metro Railway (Operation  

and Maintenance) Act, 2002, in the same year. However,  

the  fact  remains  that  despite  the  enactment  of  the  

aforesaid two Acts of 1978 and 2002 whenever any land  

was required for the purpose of MRTS project, the same  

was acquired by the Land Acquisition authority from time  

to  time  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  and  the  said  

acquired land was put at the disposal of the DMRC. In  

fact,  in  accordance  with  the  project  and  planning  

undertaken for the said purpose, whenever a particular  

piece of land at a particular place was required by the  

DMRC, it  had send a requisition to the land acquiring  

authority and on such request being made the land was  

acquired  and  put  at  the  disposal  of  the  DMRC.  It  is  

admitted fact that every time the machinery under the LA  

9

Act  was  put  into  motion,  the  provisions  of  the  Metro  

Railways  Act  have  never  been  invoked  and  the  

acquisitions in the present cases are no exception.

12. It is not in dispute that in Delhi land can be acquired by  

the Government, for public purpose, under the provisions  

of  LA Act.  The  appellants  are  candid  in  accepting  the  

importance of the MRTS project for the people of Delhi  

and also the fact that every time the machinery under the  

LA  Act  is  put  into  motion,  the  provisions  of  Metro  

Railways Act have never been invoked.

13.The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978,  

was  also  made applicable  to  Delhi,  which provides  for  

acquisition of land required for specific purpose, namely,  

for  the  construction  of  Metro  Railways  or  other  works  

connected therewith as mentioned above.  Our attention  

was drawn to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of  

the Metro Railways Act, 1978, which states that the Bill  

provides  a  speedy  and  adequate  procedure  for  the  

acquisition of land, buildings, streets, roads or passage  

or  the  right  of  user  in,  or  the  right  in  the  nature  of  

10

easement on,  such building,  land,  etc.,  by the Central  

Government to the exclusion of the Land Acquisition Act,  

1894. The Preamble of the Metro Railways Act also states  

that  the  Act  provides  for  the  construction  of  works  

relating to metro railways in metropolitan cities and for  

matters connected therewith. Power to acquire land for  

construction of any metro railways or for any other works  

connected  therewith  was  vested  on  the  Central  

Government under Section 6 of the said Metro Railways  

Act. Section 9 of the Act provided for the procedure for  

hearing of  objections filed by the persons interested in  

the  land,  building,  street,  road  or  passage.  So  far  as  

declaration  of  acquisition  of  land  is  concerned,  the  

provision made was Section 10 of the Act and the power  

to take possession was vested on the competent authority  

appointed  by  the  Central  Government  as  provided  for  

under Section 11 of the Metro Railways Act. Our specific  

attention was drawn to Section 45 of the Metro Railways  

Act which was a provision of saving, providing as follows:  

-

“Section  45.   Saving  -  Notwithstanding  anything   contained  in  this  Act  any  proceeding,  for  the   

11

acquisition of any land, under the Land Acquisition   Act,  1894 for the  purpose  of  any  metro  railway,   pending immediately before the commencement of   this Act before any court or other authority shall be   continued and be disposed of under that Act as if   this Act had not come into force.”

Section 40 of the Metro Railways Act also provides that the  

provision  of  the  said  Act  or  any  Rule  made  or  any  

notification  issued  thereunder  would  have  effect  

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained  

in  any  enactment  other  than  the  said  Act  or  in  any  

instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other  

than the said Act.  

14.Relying on the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the  

Preamble  and  the  abovesaid  provisions  of  the  Metro  

Railways Act it was contended by the counsel appearing  

for the appellants that in view of the incorporation of the  

said  provisions  in  the  said  Act,  there  was  an  implied  

repeal of the Land Acquisition Act so far as it concerns  

construction of Metro Railways or other works connected  

therewith.  

15.Similar  contentions  were  also  raised  before  the  High  

Court  and  the  two  Division  Benches,  who  heard  the  

12

matters in question dismissed the said plea holding that  

the two Acts are two independent Acts and it is for the  

authority  to  decide  as  to  which  Act  would  be  made  

applicable in a given case.  

16.However, in a situation, where recourse is taken to the  

provisions  of  the  LA  Act  for  acquiring  a  property  for  

construction of Metro Railways or other works connected  

therewith, the provisions mentioned in the LA Act could  

and would only be made applicable and no provision of  

Metro Railways Act could be taken resort to or making  

use  of.  Similarly  when recourse  is  taken for  acquiring  

land under the Metro Railways Act, no provision of the  

LA Act would or could be made applicable as both the  

two Acts contain separate provisions, although they are  

similar in some respect.

17.The Metro Railways Act gives the detailed procedure as  

to how land for construction of Metro Railways or other  

works connected therewith could be  acquired.  The Act  

also  lays  down  the  procedure  for  payment  of  

compensation.  Section  17  of  the  Metro  Railways  Act  

13

specifically states that nothing in the LA Act would apply  

to  an  acquisition  under  the  Metro  Railways  Act.  

However,  in  Section  45  a  saving  clause  has  been  

inserted,  providing  that  any  proceeding  for  the  

acquisition of any land under the LA Act for the purpose  

of  any  Metro  Railway,  pending  immediately  before  the  

commencement  of  this  Act  before  any  court  or  other  

authority shall  be continued and be disposed of under  

that Act as if this Act had not come into force.  

18.However,  it  cannot  be  said that  by inserting  the  said  

provision under Section 40 and Section 45 and also in  

view  of  the  Statements  of  Object  and  Reasons  of  the  

Metro Railways Act,  the  applicability  of  LA Act  for  the  

purpose of acquisition of land for construction of Metro  

Railways  or  other  works  connected  therewith  would  

stand repealed and could not be taken resort to. There is  

no express provision in the Metro Railways Act repealing  

applicability of the provisions of the LA Act. So long as  

there is no specific repeal of applicability of the LA Act for  

the  purpose  of  acquiring  land  for  establishing  metro  

railways it cannot be presumed that there is an implied  

14

repeal  as  sought  to  be  submitted  by  the  counsel  

appearing for the appellants. It also cannot be construed  

that the Metro Railways Act is a special Act, of such a  

nature,  that  with  the  enactment  of  the  said  Act  the  

general  law  in  LA  Act  would  get  obliterated  and  

automatically  repealed so far as acquisition of land for  

the purpose of Metro Railways is concerned.

19.  A similar contention was raised before this Court in the  

case  of  Rajinder  Kishan  Gupta  (supra).  The  counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellants,  however,  submitted  that  

although the said contention raised in the said case was  

rejected, but, according to them, the said decision needs  

reconsideration  in  view  of  the  aforesaid  specific  

provisions of the Metro Railways Act.

20.We  are  however  unable  to  agree  to  and  accept  the  

aforesaid  submission  for  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants for we do not believe that it was intended by  

the legislature to do away with the applicability of the LA  

Act for the purpose of acquisition of land for construction  

of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith by  

15

enacting the Metro Railways Act.   The aforesaid Metro  

Railways Act was enacted by the legislature, in order to  

provide  additional  provisions  for  construction  of  Metro  

Railways or other works connected therewith but it was  

not made obligatory by the legislature to invoke only the  

provisions  of  the  said  Metro  Railways  Act  in  case  of  

acquisition of land for construction of Metro Railways or  

other works connected therewith. It was left upon to the  

discretion of the concerned competent authority to take  

recourse  to  any  of  the  aforesaid  provisions  making  it  

clear that if resort is taken to the provisions of LA Act,  

the said provisions could only be made applicable and no  

provision  of  the  Metro  Railways  Act  would  then  be  

resorted to.  Similarly, if provisions of the Metro Railways  

Act is taken resort to, then only such provisions would  

apply and not the provisions of the LA Act.

21.One of the contentions of the counsel appearing for the  

appellants was that the decisions in the case of  Nagpur  

Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao and Ors. reported at  

(1973) 1 SCC 500 which was relied upon by the High  

Court, was referred in the context of the particular State  

16

Act wherein reference was made to the LA Act and the  

provisions  of  the  LA  Act  were  made  applicable  for  

acquisition of land under that particular State Act also.

22.Wherever  a  particular  State  Act  incorporates  the  

provision of the LA Act by way of reference or by way of  

incorporation by the legislation, the provisions of the LA  

Act automatically  become applicable for the purpose of  

carrying out the object of  the said particular State Act  

but wherever such power is not given there is no bar for  

taking recourse to any of the Acts which are available on  

the  subject.  There  was  no  bar  or  prohibition  for  the  

authority to take recourse to the provisions of the LA Act  

which is  also a self-contained Code and also could be  

taken recourse to for the purpose of acquiring land for  

public purposes like construction of Metro Railways and  

works connected therewith. In all  these cases no other  

provision except the provisions of the LA Act have been  

resorted  to  and,  therefore,  the  appellants  cannot  have  

any grievance for taking recourse to the said provision.

17

23.Besides,  the  Metro  Railways  Act  gives  power  to  the  

competent authority to acquire land for the purpose of  

construction  of  Metro  Railways  and  works  connected  

therewith and in the said Act it is also provided that the  

possession can be taken immediately  after  issuance of  

the declaration as envisaged under the Act. The mode of  

compensation is almost identical with that of Section 23  

of  the  LA  Act  which  lays  down  the  manner  for  

determination of the compensation to be paid.

24.The only  visible  and specific  distinction is  absence  of  

power of taking immediate possession in case of urgency  

as provided for under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the LA  

Act. As there was urgency for construction of the Metro  

Railways  in  Delhi  because  of  various  factors,  urgency  

clause was invoked in the present case and consequent  

thereupon  possession  was  taken  and  the  construction  

work of the Metro Railways including construction of the  

stations  is  completed.  Award  has  also  been  passed  

determining the compensation. Therefore, the appellants  

herein  suffer  no  prejudice  except  for  the  fact  that  

possession was taken in the instant case on an urgent  

18

basis. That plea has also been rendered infructuous in  

view of the fact that the entire project is complete.  

25.We see no reason to quash the notification issued under  

Section 4 of  the LA Act  so as to postpone the date of  

acquisition  to  a  later  period  thereby  allowing  the  

appellants  an  opportunity  of  getting  higher  

compensation.  Instead,  we  feel  it  appropriate  that  the  

policy and guidelines issued by the Government of NCT  

of Delhi could be best utilized. The aforesaid policy was  

issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi on 25.10.2006  

by way of a Circular, which provides that the persons of  

all categories, affected due to the implementation of Delhi  

MRTS  projects  can  be  relocated  and  rehabilitated  for  

which  the  Government  of  India  has  communicated  its  

decision on 28.08.2006 intimating that  the DMRC has  

already relocated the persons affected by Line-III of Metro  

Phase-I  project  and  that  Delhi  Development  Authority  

should  provide  necessary  number  of  units  for  the  

rehabilitation of remaining project affected persons.  

19

26.Counsel appearing for the DMRC informed us that any  

such  project  affected  person  could  submit  their  

application in a format prescribed, a copy of which was  

placed before us. We are informed that all the appellants  

herein  have  filed  their  applications  in  the  appropriate  

format to the concerned authorities. If  the applications  

have  been  filed  by  the  appellants  herein  in  the  

appropriate format, those are required to be considered  

by the concerned authorities as expeditiously as possible.  

If any of the appellants has not filed any such application  

in  the  format  prescribed,  it  shall  be  open  to  such  

appellants also to file  such applications in appropriate  

format within three weeks from the date of this order, in  

which case,  their  applications shall  also be considered  

along  with  the  applications  already  filed  by  the  other  

applicants/appellants  and  a  decision  thereon  shall  be  

taken within eight weeks from the date of receipt of such  

applications.  Needless  to  say  that  in  case,  any  of  the  

appellants is aggrieved by the decisions taken by DMRC  

or  by  the  other  competent  authority,  such  a  decision  

20

could  be  challenged  by  taking  recourse  to  appropriate  

remedy as provided for under the law.  

27.With aforesaid observations and directions we,  find no  

merit  in these appeals  which are  dismissed but giving  

right to the appellants herein to take recourse for their  

rehabilitation  in  terms  of  the  circular  issued  by  the  

Government  of  NCT  of  Delhi,  leaving  it  open  to  the  

competent authority / Government to decide their cases  

in accordance with law.

...........................................J        [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]

 ...........................................J [ Anil R. Dave ]

New Delhi, April 5, 2011

21