UNION OF INDIA Vs. GHANSHYAM DASS KEDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the counsel for the parties. The main question canvassed before the division bench in WP No. 3084 of 1987 was that the government was not justified in invoking Section 17 (1 read with Section 17 (4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. The High court following its earlier decision has quashed the notification on the ground that the notification did not recite the nature of the urgency. Planned Development of Delhi is not urgent and, therefore, the exercise of the power under Section 17 (4 was illegal. We do not find that the view taken by the High court is legal and correct. In Aflatoon v. Lt. governor of Delhi, the Constitution bench of this court had upheld the exercise of power under Section 17 (4 dispensing the enquiry under Section 5-A. It was for planned development of Delhi which would take long time for development. Yet this court upheld the exercise of the power of urgency. It is subjective satisfaction of the government based on the material on record. The High court is not a court of appeal over subjective satisfaction and the opinion of the government is entitled to great weight. Therefore, it cannot be said that the notification should specifically recite the nature of the urgency. It is enough, if the record discloses the consideration by the government on urgency for taking action under S. 17 (1 and (4.

(2.) However, this conclusion does not solve the problem in this case. It is seen that the employer of the respondents had obtained sanction from the Delhi Municipal Corporation as early as in 1951. A plan thereof has been annexed in the paper-book as Annx. to the additional affidavit filed by Laxman Prasad Mittal. It is an admitted fact that the plan has not so far seen the light of the day except production for the first time in this court. No application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code was filed. So it cannot be received in evidence. Be it as it may, it is not in dispute that about 3 acres of land was earmarked by the Biria Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mill for the construction of the staff quarters. The Mill has become disused but the respondents had purchased under registered sale deeds from their employer certain extents of land and most of them had 330 sq. yds. Some of them purchased in excess also. It is seen that they purchased these lands for residential purpose long prior to the notification and master plan.

(3.) This court on 9/11/1995, issued direction as stated hereunder: