MUNSHI LAL Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners (in this case) under thename and style of Friends Corporation purchased a plot of land measuring 14050 square yards in Khasra No. 408 with a bungalow builtthereon collectively known as premises No. 21 Rajpur Road, Delhi.The petitioners state that they had acquired this land to make independent residential houses for themselves, A lay out plan was submitted by the petitioners to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi forpermission to divide the property into 14 plots so as to provide eachof the petitioners with independent space for constructing residentialcottages for themselves. This lay out plan is stated to have been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 6-6-1961. The petilioners thereon proposed to submit building plans for their individual properties but before they could do so a notification dated 26-5-1960was published in the Delhi Gazette under section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire the land. There is soniccontroversy as to the khasra numbers boundaries in area of the properties so notified for proposed acquisition. Anyhow, the petitionersclaim they preferred objections under section 5A. of the Land Acquisition Act to the proposed acquisition. The petitioners claim thatthey did not get full opportunity to substantiate their objections undersection 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and a notification undersection 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the propertywas issued on 8-8-1961. It is contended that even in this notification under section 6 there was error in delineating the propertyand describing the same correctly. Aggrieved, by this acquisition the petitioners filed a petition under section 226 of the Constitution ofIndia challenging the acquisition on various grounds. In the meantime, however, it is admitted, the petitioners continued their effortsat other levels to get their property released. It is contended by thepetitioners that their effort was successful and the property wasactuallv released, but the Delhi Administration is acting mnla fidein withholding the cancellation of the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In order to bring home thissubsequent development the petitioners moved C.M. 521-D of 1966setting out that on their representations seeking release of the propertythe then Chief Commissioner of Delhi, Shri Dharam Vira. I.C.S.appointed a Sub-Committee consisting of four persons, namely. Sarv-shri Shiv Charan Gupta, M.P. K. L. Rathi, the then Housing Commissioner, Delhi Administration, the then Vice Chairman of DelhiDevelopment Authority and K. Kishore, then Chief Secretary, DelhiAdministration to consider the representations made by the pefitionersand report if the property could be released from acquisition. It isalleged that the Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri ShivCharan Gupta examined the matter and came to the conclusion thatthe land in question should be released from acquisition and was notneeded for any public purpose. On a consideration of the report ofthe sub-committee, it was alleged, Shri Dharam Vira, the then ChiefCommissioner of Delhi, examined the entire matter himself andordered the release of the property from acquisition. It was alsoalleged that the order passed by the Chief Commissioner was communicated to the petitioners by him orally. In this view of the matterit was urged that the changed circumstances may be kept in view andthe respondents be directed to issue formal orders or notification denotifying the property and releasing it from acquisition.

(2.) The respondents had contested the writ petition on merits anddisputed the contentions made by the petitioners in C.M. 521-D of1966. Thereupon the petitioners moved C.M. J409-J of 1968 praying that the additional facts pleaded by them earlier about releaseof the property may be allowed to be brought on record and the filepertaining to the property in dispute be summoned and placed beforethe court so that the contention about the release of the properly couldbe verified. Notice of this application was given to the respondentswho opposed the prayer and even claimed privilege in respect of thefile. This claim of privilege was negatived by me by my order dated 25/09/1970 and I directed that the respondents place on record the orders passed by Shri Dharam Vira, I.C.S. the then ChiefCommission of Delhi in November. 1964 and the orders stated tohave been passed by some competent authority on 20-7-1965. Thesewere duly placed on record and file No. F.15(107)/60-L.S.G.II(Part II) now forms part of this record.

(3.) A perusal of this file shows that the contention of the etitionersabout the constitution of a Committee to consider heir representationregarding the release of 21-Rajpur Road, Delhi from the purview ofacquisition are correct. - A meeting of this Committee was held andits minutes are on record. Thereafter there are various notes ofofficers and other persons dealing with this representation at variouslevels until we come to the order of the Chief Commissioner which thepetitioners claim was passed on 17-11-1964. It Is not necessary 10set out that order in detail but the purport of the order is quite clearand that is the property stood released from acquisition. The compliance of this order was then merely a procedural matter. It seemsthat on 20-7-1965 Mr. V, Vishwanathan the then Chief Commissionerof Delhi considered revision of the orders passed by Shri Vira andexpressed a view that the acquisition proceedinp. should not be dropped, but also stated that since the matter was pending in the HighCourt the result of the decision of the High Court may be awaited.How this order came to be passed is neither clear from the file norhas been made clear by the respondents in their affidavits. The question, therefore, that now arises for decision in this case, is, what isthe effect of the order of Shri Dharam Vira passed on 17-11-1964 and whether something more was required to be done under the lawto make that order operative.