UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOPAL SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOPAL Seth and Anand Kumar Seth, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, are legal representatives of Girdhari Lal. By the impugned judgment dated 27th October, 2004, the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1658/1999 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and

(2.) HAS been allowed and the appellant herein, Land and Development Officer has been directed to allot or direct DDA to allot a plot of land of the size as per the entitlement of Girdhari Lal as determined in their files. It has been also directed by the impugned judgment that the appellant shall raise a demand and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay the differential in the current pre -determined rates and the pre -determined rates as on 1st January, 1970. 2. The challenge to the impugned judgment by the appellant is principally on two grounds. Firstly, the respondent No.1 and 2 had belatedly and after great delay filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1658/1999 and the same should have been dismissed on the ground of laches. It was submitted that Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3011/2002 filed by R.K. Mehra and Another was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the said order was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1763 -64/2005 and the SLP filed against the said order has also been dismissed. The second contention was that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not entitled to allotment as they could not produce documents or evidence to show that their father Girdhari Lal had paid the entire sale consideration for the plot to Sunlight of India Insurance Company Limited.

(3.) IN normal course, the effect thereof would have been that right, title and interest of Girdhari Lal in respect of the said land remained unaffected, despite the acquisition proceedings. In actual effect, however, the Land Acquisition Collector had proceeded to make his award. The Government was faced with the predicament of what to do and whether fresh proceedings should be initiated for acquiring the land. Learned single Judge in this regard has examined in depth and detail the original file which was produced before him. We would like to reproduce the findings of the learned single Judge in paragraphs 9 to 21 in the impugned judgment: - "9.Since the notification issued under Section 4 and Section 6 were quashed, the government considered the matter from the point of view as to what should be done. Should fresh proceedings be initiated for acquiring the land or it should be settled. A letter dated 1.7.1969 shows the mind of the government. Sh.S.Chaudhuri, Deputy Secretary wrote letter dated 1.7.1969 to Sh. A.S. Choudhri, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law, Dept. of Legal Affairs. Paras 2 and 4 of the letter read as under: - ,,,,As you will observe, 28 owners of plots in the Sunlight Colony, which was also acquired, went to court and have won the case finally. The total area of these plots is about 2.5 acres. When we consulted the Ministry of Law about the consequence of the verdict of this case on the remaining area acquired, we were advised vide their u.o.note No.D35662/68 - Adv W and H dated the 31st August, 1968, that the entire land stood free from acquisition and would have to be re -acquired except for the portions the owners of which had accepted, without protest, the compensation awarded by the competent authority. 52 parties owning 35.25 acres had accepted the compensation finally. ,,,,We have now been considering how to settle the matter with the many land owners whose land was acquired. We are unable to decide upon the precise steps to be taken because of the apparent conflict between the two opinions expressed by your Ministry and referred to in paras 2 and 3 above. These need reconciliation before the case can be put up to our Minister and the Dy.Prime Minister with specific proposals. For the formulation of such proposals, my Secretary has asked me to discuss the case with you and seek reconciliation of the two opinions and also advice on further action that can be taken to safeguard Government's interests.,, 10. A meeting was held on 25.9.1969. Inter alia, following was minuted: - ,,,,J.S. (H) stated that he will be appearing before the convenor of the Action Taken Sub -Committee of the Committee on Government Assurances on 3rd October, 1969 in connection with the acquisition of land in Munirka. Secretary felt that all that we should state at this stage is that the issues are pending in court. Secretary felt that it will have to be considered whether it is worthwhile to acquire the 2.8 acres of land at a cost of Rs.3 lakhs per acre or more for the purpose of the shopping centre or whether alternatively we could arrange to retain the area by exchange of other land. This should be examined quickly; possibly Secretary and Joint Secretary should visit the area.,, 11. Deliberations continued. On 20.11.1969, following note was recorded on the file: - ,,,,A piece of land, namely, Sunlight Estate, situated on the Ring Road at Ramakrishnapuram, New Delhi, was acquired in 1957. The 28 plot holders, aggrieved by such acquisition, appealed to the Court. The case was heard by two Lower Courts, High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India. Right from the Administrative Court upto the Supreme Court of India, which by its decision on 7 November, 1968, the said 28 plot holders were vested with the possession of their land and the acquisition proceedings were held illegal, null and void. The plot holders are, however, unable to proceed further until your Ministry decides whether or not the plots were required for your proposed District Centre. In view of this the plot -holders appeal to you to take a quick decision and consider the possibility of their being grouped on one side of the District Centre or offered alternative plots at the nearest and equally good comparable site. The plot holders feel, that to avoid complexities of the legal problems, it would be easier to group these plot holders on one side of the District Centre than to shift them from their present site. Whatever the decision is it would be most welcome to the plot holders since it will end their long suffering and make them possible to construct their houses whose costs are rising every day.,, 12. The 28 litigant plot holders had nominated one Sh.B.K. Bhowmik as their nominee to discuss the matter with the government and decide future course of action. He participated in a meeting held on 8.12.1969. Following was minuted: ,,,,Minutes of the meeting held in Secretary's room at 12.00 noon on 8.12.69 with the plot - holders (28 litigants) in Sunlight Colony, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Present: 1.Shri P.R. Nayak, Secretary.........In Chair. 2.Shri C. Chaudhuri, Director (LP) 3.Shri G.C. Sinha, Under Secretary(Lands) 4.Shri B.K. Bhowmik)