AJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed the present petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith hand over the actual and physical possession of the petitioners' land measuring 112 bighas and 14 biswas in village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi. The petitioner further prayed that respondents be directed to comply with the judgment and directions contained in the judgment of this court dated 16/05/1989 in CWP 51/1989 and in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India. The petitioners sub-sequently filed an amended writ petition claiming the relief of restoration of possession of their land and the relief of quashing of the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the land in suit. . Briefly the facts are that the Government had issued a notification dated 25/11/1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of certain lands including the lands of the petitioners which are subject matter of the present writ petition. The notification containing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act Was issued on 18/06/1985. The respondents also made the award with respect to the suit lands being Award No. 23/87-88. It is an admitted fact as per various averments contained in the writ petition itself the petitioners had accepted compensation for their auired land in pursuance of the award and the Government had taken possession of the lands. It is stated in para 7 of the writ petition that "the petitioners, therefore, again approached the respondents and requested them to hand over the peaceful possession of the land to them." Again in para 9 of the writ petition, it is averred" "....the action of the respondents in not restoring the possession of the entire land of the petitioners over the years ago is wholly mala fide and illegal...." In para 10 of the writ petition, it is stated as under: "that the petitioners have impleaded the Delhi Development Authority as a party respondent, since the land after the acquisition are vested in the DDA for the carrying out of development activities."

(2.) As already stated, one of the reliefs sought in the writ petition is for restoration of possession of the suit lands. Thus, as per their own averments, the possession of the lands subject matter of the writ petition is with the Government. The Government has taken possession of the land in pursuance of an award of the Collector made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act after paying compensation to the land owners/petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners had filed objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the judgement of this court in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India squarely applies in the facts of the present case. The notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act were quashed by this court by the said judgment. For the same reason it is submitted that the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act are liable to be quashed in this case also. A .controversy has arisen as to whether the decision in Balak Ram Gupta's case whereby a batch of 73 writ petitions had been allowed quashing notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act was confined to the petitioners in those petitions or its benefits would flows to all the villagers whose land was sought to be acquired irrespective of whether they filed petitions challenging the notifications. This controversy has been set to rest by the latest decisions of the Supreme Court in Gurdeep Singh Urban v. Union of India 2000(5) Scale 651, According to the said decision, the benefit of quashing of the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act is confined to the petitioners in that batch of writ petitions.