HARI RAM KAKKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings with respect to land comprised in khasra numbers 571, 577, 578, 580min, 581, 555, 591, 593, 592, 554 and 592min , totalling 32 bighas 1 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Satbari within the territory of the State of Delhi, Briefly the facts are that notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 5/ 25/11/1980 covering large tracts of lands falling in several villages within the union territory of Delhi including village Satbari. The object for which the lands were sought to be acquired was stated in the notification as planned development of Delhi'. There have been several rounds of litigation in this court with respect to these lands covered under notifications under section 4 of the Act. First, the validity of the said notification was challenged by way of writ petitions. These petitions were dismissed vide judgment dated 15/11/1983 in Munni Lalo v. Lt. Governor of Delhi. ILR (1984) 1 Delhi 469. Section 6 notifications with regard to these villages were issued in May/June 1985 and January/February 1986. These notifications were again challenged. One of the main grounds for challenge was that section 6 notifications were issued beyond the statutory period of three years provided under the Act. There was some difference of opinion between two Benches of this court on the point in issue. Therefore, a Full Bench was constituted which decided the question of delay vide its judgment dated 27/5/1987 reported as Balak Ram Gupta V. Union of India, AIR 1987 Delhi 239. It was held that the period during which stay orders were in operation had to be excluded while computing the period of three years which is the outside limit set by the statute for issuing a notification under section 6 of the Act after the notification under section 4. The cases were remanded back for decision on merits to the Division Bench. The judgment of the Division Bench is reported as Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India and Others. 37 (1989) DLT 150. In this case the Division Bench examined in detail the importance of the right of the land owners under section 5 A of the Act. The Bench also examined whether the provisions of section 5A of the Act have been duly complied with. For this purpose the relevant government records were called and examined in court and on the basis of the records it was found that no proper inquiry under section 5A of the Act had been conducted and the proceedings were totally vitiated. The court .also held that the sanction of the Lt. Governor based on the report of the Collector under section 5A of the Act was vitiated and was liable to be quashed. Accordingly the petitioners succeeded. In all there were 73 writ petitions challenging the acquisition of land in 11 villages falling in South Delhi These villages included village Satbari in which the lands subject matter of the present writ petition fall. The acquisition proceedings in regard to the 11 village were quashed. A controversy arose whether the benefit of the decision in Balak Ram-Gupta's case was confined to the 73 petitioners whose petitions were disposed of by the said judgment or the benefit will flow to other land owners also. This controversy was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court in Abhey Ram v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 421 followed by Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Sing Uban and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 296. These decisions of the Supreme Court hold that the benefit of the judgment in Balak Ram Gupta's case is confined to the petitioners who had filed writ petitions which were being disposed of by the said judgment i.e. 73 writ petitions mentioned in the judgment. According to the Supreme Court the benefit does not flow to rest of the land owners who had not approached the court. It was further held in Uban's case (supra) that land owners who had filed objections under section 5A of the Act alone were entitled to independent hearing of their writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings.

(2.) Therefore, those land owners who did not file section 5A objections at all had their fate sealed and they could not challenge the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) In the present case although the petitioner stated in the original writ petition that he had not filed objections under section 5 A of the Act. , the writ petition was amended to state that the petitioner had filed section 5 A objections and the petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings with respect to his lands. The fact that the petitioner had filed section 5A objections was not disputed by the respondents. As a matter of fact the name of the petitioner occurs in the list of persons filing section 5A objections in the report of Collector regarding section 5A objections. Thus there is no dispute that petitioner had filed objections under section 5A of the Act.