LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-418

MURALIDHAR CHANDRAKANT BHANDARE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 05, 2010
MURALIDHAR CHANDRAKANT BHANDARE Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of order or directions thereby declaring Notification No. F.10 (30)/96/L&B/LA/13417 dated 13-12-2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Notification/Declaration No. F.10(3)/9D6/L&B/LA/14062 dated 7-12-2001 under Section 6 of the Act as violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The subsequent Notification dated 21st March, 2002 issued under Section 17(1) of the Act in respect of the petitioner's land is also challenged as unconstitutional, illegal and mala fide.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of land and farm house built on the said land which comprises Khasra Nos. 27/20/2(1-10), 28/24/2 (0.11), 29/4/1 (1-4), 28/24/1 (4-5), 28/25/1 (3-2), 28/16 (4-12) (total 19 Bighas & 16 Biswas) situated in revenue estate of village Pochanpur, District Delhi. According to the petitioner, he had applied for sanction of the plans for construction of farm house on the said land which was sanctioned vided letter No. 17/A/40/87 dated 30th June, 1987. After completion of the construction of the farm house, the petitioner had applied for occupancy certificate which was issued on 22nd October, 1993.

(3.) A Notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of large number of villages including village Pochanpur was issued on 13th December, 2000 wherein it was proposed to acquire the areas mentioned in the said Notification and objections to the proposed action were invited under Section 5 of the Act. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that he filed the objections on 16th January, 2001. However, neither opportunity of personal hearing was allowed to the petitioner nor any reply was given by the respondents to the said objections. On the contrary, without complying the aforesaid mandatory procedure, the respondents issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 21st January, 2001 and thereafter Notification under Section 17(1) of the Act on 21st March, 2002 thereby acquiring the land including that of the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the aforesaid Notifications/declarations under Section 4/6/17 of the Act respectively. Though, the Notifications are challenged on many grounds, it is not necessary to go into all these contentions advanced in the writ petition. It is because of the reason that that the respondents in their additional affidavit dated 1st June, 2010 have accepted the factual position namely: