HUKAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two writ applications under Art. 32 of the Constitution; the first petition is by 174 persons while the second one is by 143. The petitioners in either application claim to be members of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the economically backward section of society. They claim to be residents of a cluster of villages included within the panchayat of Nasirpur located within the Union Territory of Delhi, not far away from the urbanised areas. On 25-2-1984, the Gaon Sabha resolved to grant certain lands vested in it to the petitioners and some other persons for residential purposes on the footing that they were members of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the backward section of the society and did not have residential accommodation. In spite of the decision taken in the Goan Sabha the lands were not allotted. A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court by 13 persons challenging the decision to allot the lands. The High Court by its order of February 1, 1985, dismissed the petition; yet the resolution was not implemented. In the meantime these properties were sought to be acquired and on 18-9-1984 a notification under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. Petitioners have come before this Court asking for quashing the notification of acquisition in regard to these properties and for a direction to the respondents who are the authorities of the Delhi Administration and the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha to give effect to the resolution of 25-2-1984. There is no dispute that the land was vested in the Gaon Sabha.

(2.) However, soon after the resolution for allotment was made there was a spate of petitions against the proposal to allot the lands and respondents 1 to 4 were moved by different people. It was contended in those petitions that the Gaon Sabha of Nasirpur was having land in Nasirpur as also in village Sagarpur but Sagarpur was a non-resident revenue estate. The Gaon Sabha land was small in area and was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the community which required playground, cattleground, grazing land, graveyard, hospital, schools etc. Gaon Sabha land was intended for meeting the common needs of the community and if there was any surplus land that only was available for distribution for purposes like the one in the resolution. It was further stated that the Pradhan purporting to implement the 20-Point programme had, without authority and propriety misled the officers and obtained the resolution which should not be implemented. Acquisition proceedings on one side and objections of this nature on the other and the attempt to restrain the resolution by going to the High Court cumulatively stood in the way of its implementation. Even in this Court an attempt was made on behalf of the objectors to intervene with a view to resisting the relief claimed.

(3.) The Pradhan, respondent No. 5, has filed an affidavit fully supporting the claim of the petitioners while the official respondents have filed affidavits indicating the facts relevant to the matter.