ASA RAM GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a composite, notification No. F. 42(7)/67-L&H(i) under sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. There was yet another notification No. F. 42(7)-L&B(ii), under section 6 of the said Act and an order, No. F. 42,/(7),/67- L&B(iii), authorising the taking of possession of the land in dispute. All of them were issued on the same day, namely, 17th June, 1967. Among the several grounds taken in the writ petition which was filed to quash the above said notifications and order it is sufficient to notice the attack on their validity on the ground that the recourse to powers under section 17, dispensing with the opportunity under section 5A to the affected party to file objections, was mala fide, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. A Kplan has been annexed to the writ petition; the portion which is the subject matter of the present petition is shaded yellow. The property is situate in field No. 1115/991/450/1-min in village Chandraweli alias Shahdara said to measure 3 bighas 5 biswas. An area of 10 biswas out of the said extent,s said to be part of the Dharamsala wherein there was a Piao, tube-well, a well and other constructions: even the windows and doors of the Dharamsala and other constructions open into the acquired portion. The petitioner represents a charitable trust which is run for the benefit of the public for the last more than 40 years. An entry concerning the Dharamsala had been made in the Jamabandi for the year 1948-49, copy of which as well as a true translation have been filed as Annexures B-1 and B along with the rejoinder. There was another notification, copy of which was filed along with the return as Annexure B-1, relating to the built-up portion of the Dharamsala measuring 12 biswas this is the portion in the plan not shaded yellow.

(2.) In the affidavit of return filed by Shri Jagmohan, Secretary (Land & Building) Delhi Administration, on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that the land was urgently required for construction of Delhi Transport Undertaking Depot and resort was. therefore, had to section 17 of the Act since the land in question was waste and arable. It may be noticed in this context that ground No. 5 specifically raised the question of the land not being either waste or arable in the following words :

(3.) In addition to the above said averments in the petition the petitioner had stated further as follows :