UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEEPAK BHARADWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgments and orders dated 24th July, 2001, passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 4361 of 1998 etc., Union of India and others have filed these appeals. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Court quashed the notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of acquiring authority in issuing the said notification.

(2.) Learned Addl. Solicitor General Mr. Mukul Rohtagi submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the notification issued under Section 4 cannot be justified because the High Court has not assigned any reason for setting aside the same. He also pointed out that one of the growth centre was to be established in village Rajokari. However, due to paucity of Government /Gaon Sabha land, it was decided not to have any growth centre in Rajokari and it was decided to set up a growth point at Samalkha. The Government issued a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) of the land Acquisition Act acquiring the land of village Samalkha.

(3.) As against this, learned senior counsel Mr. P. N. Lekhi, Mr. V. A. Mohta and Mr. Ravinder Sethi elaborately pointed out that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the authority in issuing the Notification under S. 4 and S. 17(1) of the Act and in any case there is no question of applying urgency clause. It has been pointed out that so-called Mini Master Plan is not backed by any authority of law and the Master Plan for Delhi prepared under the Delhi Development Act does not provide for establishment of Growth Centre on the land which is sought to be acquired. It is also pointed out that the impugned Notification is issued mala fidely.