Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector

1. The petitioners claim>tp be^owners ofthe land measuring 3 Bighas 'i. -Lf ' 1'' I ^ and 6 Biswas comprised,in'KhasrajNo. 2144/1 (3-6) of Village Tihar,Delhi.

2. By the present petitionTiledsunder artioleSSh ofthe Constitution of India, the petitioners seelc a declaration that the notification dated 11.03.1964 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has become void and inapplicable to the land of the petitioners.

3. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal ofthis writ petition, notifications under Section 4 and Section 17 (1) were issued on 11.03.1964. The predecessors in the interest of petitioners filed a W.P.(C)5083/2014 Page[1] of[5] 2018:DHC:8618-DB writ petition No.600-D/1964 seeking quashing ofthe notification in respect ofland ofthe petitioners. The aforesaid writpetition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge which led to filing ofLPA No. 35/1969 which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court videjudgment dated 30.09.1981 wherein it was held thatthe invocation of urgency claused i.e. Section 17(1)and(4)ofLand Acquisition Act was bad. Consequently, the notification under Section6ofthe Actwas&lso'l^as^^

4. It is the case of the petitionerrithat no freshfnotification under Section 6 ofthe Act was ever issued pertaining to the>subject land post thequdgment of Division Bench dated 30.09.1981 It is the submission of the learned counsel, for the petitioner that the notification dated 11.03^1964flssued;;under Section 4 of the Act expired with the afflux §i;||hspite ofpassage oftwo years after the decision rendffiqjhy the'Diyision Bench on 30.09.1981 in LPA No. 35/1969, noWidiificafedn under^Section 6 ofthe Act was issued. Reliance is placlJlldit® t No 13 of 1967 where the time limit oftwo years has been fixed for issuance ofnotification under Section 6 ofthe Act'It^^aihotifieMciM^Section 4 ofthe act has been issued.

5. In this back drop, learned counsel for the q^etitioner submits that notification under Section 4 has expired and become void due to afflux of time. Learned counsel further submits that despite the notification having expired by afflux of time, the respondent W.P.(C)5083/2014 Page2of[5] continues to show thatthe land is owned by the Government as per the Jamabandi Khatoni pertaining to the subjectland.

6. Mr. Ajay Verma,learned counsel appearing for the DDA submits thatthe subject land was acquired for the public purpose,however, notification under Section 17(1)and Section 6 were quashed by the Division Bench ofthis Courtin LPA bearing No.35/1969. Mr.Jain further submits that as per counter affidavit filed by Land Acquisition Collector'ic^tmif&sation has'l^n paid to one Swami.• t." ■ 'I V. 'AmarDev. ^ *»"-V -''t' ^

7. Learned cpuhsel for.tnelpetitioner submits that Swami Amar Dev • I'••v." V—••sir<: has ncr^cPhcem witli the'land^of the^petitioners. Even otherwise, I'l* 1-^' H' payriieht of compensation' to"-'another person would have no relevance to the facts ofmefipi^esentleSse. 11II

8. Wehave heardthelearnePppunselfOTtheparties.

9. While allowing the LPA^I^o.35/1969 vide order dated 30.09.1981, it was held as under:' '4 "It must be recognizedJhat acquisition of a land is a veiy serious matter and can only be resorted to for a public purpose^ It is only in matt|r^in which there is realurgencytlMi|^^mii[7];^^fi|&specialpowerin cases of urgency cam be'invoked; mentioned above, LPA 36 of 1969 is, however,dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both the appeals." otherwise legislature in its anxiety for he rights ofindividuals has given a valuable right under section 5A of the Act. This limited but nevertheless important right must not be lightly taken away, except for good and urgent grounds- which are missing in this case. We are, therefore, not satisfied that resort could have been made to section 17(1) and (4). We would, therefore, W.P.(C)5083/2014 Page3of[5] V allow the appeal,quash that portion ofthe notification dated 11.03.1964 in so far as it indicated that it appeared to the ChiefCommissioner that land is likely to be required to be taken by Government at public expenses for a public purpose namely for Planned Development ofDelhi would remain unaffected and is upheld. The authorities, if so advised, may proceed further in the matter after giving an opportunity to the appellants oftiling their objections under section 5A of the Act. Of course, declaration in the notification of 11.03.1964 made;^uhder;s^tiom^h^^ be quashed because the prpcedure how will"have tq, start jftom section 5A^ and it is;:pnly thereafter that.:declaration under^'Section 6,rif;ahy^can'be made. We reit'efate that nptification undeF's'edtibpA is beingJiipheld. Wfth these dbservation LPA-No.35 of 1969 is allowed a^^above.,As mentioned above, LPAf 36/1969 is, however, dismissed" > ( ^,.•ft' i-i 'i', I s.

10. In view of the observatibnl madeiby the Division Bench of this Court,it leaves no room/for doubt.that notification under section 6 / ■? S i. rl' and 17(1) pertaining tp the subie^^ quashed. Section 43(2) of the Land Acquisitii|n,^^||jp^M^ent And Validation Act, 1967) reads as under: "Section 43(2)- r^Notwilfe^ contained in clause (b) of sub-section (1), no declaration under section 65 of the principal Act in respect of any land which has been notified before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) ordinance, 1967, under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the principal Act, shall be made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the said Ordinance." W.P. (C) 5083/2014 Page 4 ofS { )

11. It is not in dispute that post the decision passed in LPA NO. 36/1969, a fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act has not been issued till date and two years period prescribed under Section 43(2)has lapsed.

12. Accordingly, it is declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land and notification dated 11.03.1964 under Section 4, are deemed to have lapsed, become inapplicable and expired.

13. The respondents are directed to.make the necessary correction in the revenue records.The writ petition is allowed in passed terms.

14. Writpetition is allowed in aboveteniis. CM APPLN.NO.10146/2014 The application stands disposed of,in view oforder passed in writ petition.

JANUARY 23,2018 gr:V-:\C •«• '• ■ vi"; "" 'V vv::-o SANGITA G.S.SISTANI,J G GAL