SHANTI SPORTS CLUB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4777/93 and 3277/2000, Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/93, which is prior in time, was filed by the petitioner, Shanti Sports Club, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 through its President, Sh. Satish Khosla and petitioner Sh. Sunil Nagar, Member and Secretary thereof inter alia for quashing the acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing khasra Nos. 35, 369/36, 37, 38, 367/21 and 365/33 located in village Masudpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi and for restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and the functioning of the petitioner society in respect of the sports club created on the aforesaid land. The writ petition also seeks direction to the respondents requiring them to consider the release of the land in question from acquisition. The prayer clause of the writ petition reads as follows:-

(2.) Therefore, it has been decided that your request to denotify the above land cannot be acceded as the land is required for public purpose. This is for your information.

(3.) This issues with the approval of the competent authority. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (R.C. NAYAK) Under Secretary (DDVA)" Shanti Sports Club and Shri Satish Khosla, President thereof, being aggrieved of the decision of the Government have filed writ petition No. 3277/2000. This is how both the writ petitions are before us. Shri Sanghi and Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that representations were filed by the petitioners before the authorities for release of the land from acquisition, for its regularisation in favour of the petitioners and change of user thereof from 'rural use' to 'recreational use'. Our attention was drawn to the representation dated 3/10/1997 which was addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India; the Lt.Governor; Secretary, Land and Building Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Vice Chairman DDA in which it was inter alia requested that powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act be exercised for denotification of the land in question. It was also pointed out that pursuant to the representation, the Private Secretary to the Minister of Urban Development, Government of India, on 8/01/1999 addressed a letter to the Commissioner (Planning), DDA, seeking the latter's views as to whether it would be appropriate to accord sanction to the sports club, in view of the fact that there are no sport clubs in the Vasant Kunj area, which has a large population. The Director was asked to send his report by 25/01/1999. The learned senior counsel also claimed that on 3/06/1999 a fresh representation was presented before the Minister for Urban Development when the Vice Chairman, DDA, and other senior officials were present. According to them, Shri Jethmalani, the then Minister for Urban Development, took the decision to denotify the land and to regularise the same in favour of the club. As per learned counsel, the President of the Club was directed to discuss the terms for regularisation with the DDA. They also referred to a note of the Chairman, D.D.A., dated 3/06/1999 and submitted that it was recorded to give effect to the decision of the Minister. The learned senior counsel also referred to a further representation of the petitioners dated 8/06/1999 suggesting the terms for regularisation of the land in favour of the club and to a note recorded by the then Minister for Urban Development, Government of India, thereon on the same day, viz., 8/06/1999. Learned senior counsel contended that Shri Jethmalani, the then Minister had taken a final decision to denotify the land in question and regularise the same in favour of the petitioner club. According to them, only the terms on the basis of which the formal notifications withdrawing from acquisition and releasing the land in favour of the petitioners were required to be settled. They argued that contrary to the decision arrived at by the then Minister for Urban Development on 3/06/1999 and Jun 8/06/1999, his successor declined to denotify the land by reviewing, and reversing the same though no power of review vested with him. The upshot of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is as follows :-