Rakesh Kumar v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

1. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of notification No. 10(29)/96/L&B/LA 11394 dated 27.10.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The subject matter of this writ petition is land comprised in Khasra No.53/11 (10 Biswas) and Khasra No. 53/12 (11 Biswas), total land measuring 1055 Sq. yards situated at Village Prehaldpur Bangar, 2018:DHC:4913-DB Delhi 110042.

3. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that a Section 4 notification of the Act was issued on 27.10.1999 followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 03.04.2000. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notifications, similarly situated land owners had filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court being W. P. (C) 2532/2000 titled as “Darshan Singh & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor & Ors.”.

4. It is also pointed out that vide order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the Delhi High Court, the case of the land owners was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the Delhi High Court various similarly situated land owners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide CA Nos. 3017-3018/2012 and various other connected matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued notice and granted interim stay of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 17.09.2007. By an order dated 21.03.2012, the Supreme Court was pleased to quash the declaration under Section 17 of the Act and the declaration dated 03.04.2000 issued under Section 6 of the Act.

5. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the LAC issued a general public notice thereby inviting objections under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioner approached the LAC and filed objections in his individual capacity and also through the Residents Welfare Association.

6. A fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 20.03.2013 after a lapse of the statutory period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the possession of the land in question was taken nor the compensation has been paid. He further submits that since the fresh Section 6 notification was made after a lapse of more than one year, the case of the petitioner would be covered by the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W. P. (C) 3049/2013 titled as Sunil Goel & Others Vs. The State and Others decided on 29.04.2014 when batch of cases were decided. Reliance is placed on para 18 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under:

18. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners ought to be accepted. This is so because the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao (supra) covers the present case on all fours. The very issue before the Supreme Court, as pointed out by us earlier, was - whether, after the quashing of a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, a fresh period of one year would be available to the State Government to issue another declaration under Section 6. This question has been answered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (supra) in the negative. In other words, when a Section 6 declaration is quashed, it does not give a fresh period of one year to the Government to issue another Section 6 declaration. The Section 6 declaration, after such quashing, if at all, can be issued only during the balance period.

7. It is further pointed out that the case of Sunil Goel (Supra) has attained finality as SLP preferred by the respondents stands dismissed in limine.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the relevant dates to draw the attention of the Court that the period of one year has lapsed and fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act is delayed by 8 months and 24 days.

9. Mr. Jain, learned Standing Counsel for LAC has also drawn the attention of this Court to para 5 of the counter affidavit which has been placed on record. Para 5 of the counter affidavit is reproduced below:

10. Mr. Jain further submits that the fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued within a period of one year of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court on 21.03.2012.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

12. The case of the petitioner, in our view, is fully covered by the decision rendered in the case of Sunil Goel (Supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (supra). The details of the time period applicable to the present case, is detailed below in the form of a chart. Time Lapse Date of Section 4 notification 27/10/1999 Date of stay granted by High Court 15/05/2000 6 months 18 days Date of dismissal from High Court 09/07/2007 Date of Notice and stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 17/09/2007 2 months and 9 days Date of decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court quashing the declaration 21/03/2012 u/s & urgency clause u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Declaration u/s 6 20/03/2013 11 months 27 days Total time lapse 1 Year 8 months 24 days