SHANTA TALWAR & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                         (2011) 6 S.C.R. 38


A                    SHANTA TALWAR & ANR.
                                   v.
                       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 3072-73 of 2004)
                            APRIL 5, 2011
B
               [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                      ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

         Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4, 5A, 6, 17(1) and 17(4)
C   - Metro Railways in Delhi - Acquisition o; land for purposes
    of Metro Railways - Applicability of the LA Act - Whether in
    view of the provisions of the Metro Railways Act, which was
    applicable to the city of Delhi, the land for the purpose of
    con·struction of Metro Railway could and should only be
o   acquired under the provisions of the said Act and not under
    the provisions of the LA Act - Held: 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
E   acquiring land for establishing metro railways it cannot be
    presumed that there is an implied repeal -- The 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
F
    provisions of the said Metro Railways Act in case of
    acquisition of land for construction of Metro Railways or other
    works connected therewith - It is 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
G   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

H                                 38
     SHANTA TALWAR.& ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA &             39
                     'PRS.
  would apply and not the provisions of the LA Act - There is A
  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 - Metro Railways B
  (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 - ss. 17, 40 and 45.

       Land acquisition proceedings were initiated for
  construction of Prem Nagar Station, which is a part of
  Mass Rapid Transit System [MRTS], a project undertaken C
  by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [DMRC). The land
  was sought to be acquired by issuing a notification under
  Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), 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 invifing D
  objections under Section 5-A of the LA Act, which was
  followed by issuance of Declaration under Section 6 and
  notice under Section 9.
       The appellants-landowners challenged the land           E
  acquisition proceedings contending inter alia that no
  acquisition on behalf of the Metro Railways could be
  made under the general law, i.e., LA Act, as the Metro
  Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, a special
  legislation, was enacted by the Parliament with the          F
  specific purpose and object of speedy and adequate
  acquisition of land by the Central Government. The
  appellants 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        G
  solely for the purposes of Metro Railways, applicability
  of the LA Act for the purpose of Metro Railways should
  be deemed to be impliedly repealed. The appellants
  further contended that the Metro Railways Act, which is
  a specific law on the subject, having specifically           H
    40      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.

       The Respondents, on the other hand, contended
C inter alia that despite the fact that the Metro Railways Act
  Is 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
D at hand.

       The question which thus arose for consideration in
  the instant appeals was whether in view of the provisions
  of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978,
E 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.
         Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F
      HELD:1.1. 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
G 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
H two Acts contain separate provisions, although they are
                i'




   SHANTA TALWAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA &             41
                    ORS.
similar in some respect. The Metro Railways Act gives the     A
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 specifically states that nothing in the LA Act   B
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          c
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. However,
it cannot be said that by inserting the said provision
under Section 40 and Section_ 45 and also in view of the      0
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         E
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
repeal as sought to be submitted by the appellants. It        F
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      G
concerned. [Paras 16, 17 and 18) [52-E-H; 53-A-F]
     1.2. It cannot be said 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    H
    42      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A   Metro Railways or ottier works connected therewith by
    enacting the Metro Railways Act. The 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
B   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
c   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
0
    apply and not the provisions of the LA Act. [Para 20] [53·
    H; 54·A·D]
       1.3. Wherever a particular State Act incorporates the
  provision of the LA Act by way of reference or by way of
E 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
F 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
G 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.
  Besides, the Metro Railways Act gives power to the
H competent authority to acquire land for the purpose of
 • SHANTA TALWAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA &             43
                    ORS.
construction of Metro Railways and works connected A
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 B
determination of the compensation to be paid. [Paras 22,
23) [55-F-H; 56-A-C]
     1.4. The only visible and specific distinction is
absence of power of taking immediate possession in c
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 D
construction of the stations is completed. Award has also
been passed determining the compensation. Therefore,
the appellants suffer no prejudice except for the fact that
possession was taken in the instant case on an urgent
basis. That plea has also been rendered infructuous in E
view of the fact that the entire project is complete. [Para
24) [55-D-F]

     Rajinder Kishan Gupta and Anr. v. Union of India and
                       =
Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 46 2010 (10) SCR 172; S.S. Darshan         F
                                                 =
v. State of Kamataka and Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 302 1995 (5)
Suppl. SCR 221 and Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal
Rao and Ors., (1973) 1 SCC 500 = 1973 (3) SCR 39 -
referred to.
    2.1. There is no reason to quash the notification . G
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, it is felt appropriate that the policy
                                                              H
        44      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 6 S.C.R.


    A 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
    B 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-Ill of Metro
      Phase-I project and that Delhi Development Authority
    c should provide necessary number of units for the
      rehabilitation of remaining project affected persons. [Para
      25) [55-G-H; 56-A-B]

             2.2. The counsel appearing for the DMRC stated
        before this Court that any such project affected person
    D   could submit their application in a format prescribed, a
        copy of which was placed before this Court. This Court
        has been informed that all the appellants have filed their
        applications in the appropriate format to the concerned
        authorities. If the applications have been filed by the
    E   appellants 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
    F   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
    G   of such applications. In case, any of the appellants is
        aggrieved by the decisions taken by DMRC or by the
•       other competent authority, such a decision could be
        challenged by taking recourse to appropriate remedy as
        provided for under the law. [Para 26] [56-C-F]
    H
   SHANTA TALWAR -&-ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA &                 45
                    ORS.

     2.3. There is no merit in these appeals which are            A
dismissed but giving right to the appellants 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. [Para 27] [56-G]              B

                     Case Law Reference:

    2010 (10) SCR 172            referred to        Para 9

    1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 221 referred to             Para 9
                                                                  c
    1973 (3) SCR 39              referred to        Para 21

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
3072-3073 of 2004.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 7.4.2004 of the High         D
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Civil) Nos. 2329 & 2786
of 2004.

    Ravinder Sethi, P.O. Gupta, Kamal Gupta, Abhishek
Gupta, Puneet Sharma, Gagan Gupta, Rachana Joshi lssar,           E
Rajesh Sah, Nidhi Tiwari, Himani .Bhatnagar for the Appellants.

   Tarun Johri, Ankur Gupta, Rachana Srivastava, Jatinder
Kumar Bhaita for the Respon~ents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    F

    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.
                                                                  G
     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        H
    46       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
C 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
D Section 4 of the Land Acquisition ~ct, 1894 [for short 'the LA
   Act'] on 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
E 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
F 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.
G      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
H Metro Railways or other works connected therewith, like: -
     SHANTA TALWAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA &                 47
        ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
       (a)   make or construct in, upon, across, under or over A
             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, B
             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            c
             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 D
             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 E
             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 ot'1er works and F
             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 G
             substitute others in their stead;
~·

       (f)   draw, make or conduct such maps, plans, surveys
             or tests, as the metro railway administration thinks
             property;
                                                                    H
     48          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 6 S.C.R.

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

         However, in the said Writ Petitions filed by Pawan Singh
     & Ors.; Shanta Talwar and Diwan Chand, the lands were
8
     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
C    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
D    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
.E   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.

         6. Be that as it may, in all these appeals possession of
     land in question has already been taken and the purpose for
F    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
G    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
H    acquisition on behalf of the Metro Railways could be made
    SHANTA TALWAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA &                      49
       ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

under the general law, i.e., LA Act, as a special legislation           A
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                 B
complete and self-contained code providing for acquisition of
land solely for the purposes of Metro 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           C
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              D
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          E
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 a/ia that despit~ the fact that            F
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        G
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 sec
46 and also on the decision of this Court in S.S. Darshan v.
State of Karnataka and Ors. reported at (1996) 7 sec 302.
                                                                        H
    50        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A        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
8
    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 DMRC was incorporated as a
    company under the Indian Companies Act. Thereafter, for the
    purpose of operation and maintenance of the Metro Railways
C   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
D   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
E   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
F   acquired and put at the disposal of the DMRC. It is admitted
    fact that every time the machinery under the LA 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.
G
         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
H



                                   /
SHANTA TALWAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 51
        [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
motion, the provisions of Metro Railways Act have never been         A
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
                                                                     8
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   C
the nature of 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      D
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     E
land, building, street, road or passage. So far as declaration
of acquisition of land is concerned, the provision made was
Section 1O 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             F
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 acquisition of any land, G
    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
                                                                 H
    52       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2011] 6 S.C.R.


A        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
8
    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
C 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.
D
       15. Similar contentions were also raised before the High
  Court and the two Division Benches, who heard the 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H the procedure for payment of compensation. Section 17 of the
    SHANTA TALWAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA &                   53
       ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

Metro Railways Act specifically states that nothing in the LA Act    A
would applyto 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           B
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      C
  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   D
  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
  repeal as sought to be submitted by the counsel appearing for
  the appellants. It also cannot be construed that the Metro         E
. 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.
                                                                     F
     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        G
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     H
    54        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 6 S.C.R.

A 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 enacting the Metro Railways Act.
  The aforesaid Metro Railways Act was enacted by the
  legislature, in order to provide additional provisions for
e 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
c 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
0
  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)
E 1 sec 500 which was relied upon by the High Court, was
  referred in the context of the particular State 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.
F
       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
G 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
H could be taken recourse to for the purpose of acquiring land
    SHANTA TALWAR ~ ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA &                55
       ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
 for public purposes like construction of Metro Railways and A
 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.
                                                                  B
      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 C
 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 D
  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 E
  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 basis.
  That plea has also been rendered infructuous in view of the fact F
  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 G
 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
                                                                  H
      56       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6 S.C.R.


 A 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-Ill of Metro Phase-I project and that
 B Delhi Development Authority should provide necessary number
    of units for the rehabilitation of remaining project affected
    persons.

           26. Counsel appearing for the DMRC informed us that any
 C    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
 D    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,
 E    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
• F   by DMRC or by the other competent authority, such a decision
      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
 G 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 I Government to
   decide their cases in accordance with law.
 H B.B.B.                                         Appeals dismissed.