SHANTI SWAROOP BHATIA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner owns aperpetual lease hold rights in a plot of land measuring 1920 sq. yds. situated at a distance of 1/2 mile from the junction of Ring Road and Mehrauli Road and runs a petrol filling cum service station on the said premises. The petitioner purchased the lease hold rights from S/Shri Satish Chand Gupta and Suresh Chand Gupta vide sale deed dated 6.8.1965 which was duly registered on 12th-August, 1965. This land originally formed part of a bigger area of land ad measuring about 24.1 acres which was given on perpetual lease by the Secretary of State for India in Council on 19th March 1924 in favour of one Sardar Ram Singh Kabli who in turn assigned his rights to S/Shri Satish Chand Gupta and Suresh Chand Gupta. A notification dated 13th November 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued notifying the intention to acquire an area of 34070 acres of land for purpose of planned development of Delhi. As per the master plan the land in question was ear marked for petrol pump site. The petitioner approached the Delhi Administration--respondent no. 4 and Indian Oil Corporation-respondent no. 5 and thus by letter dated 25th September 1965. Respondent no. 4 informed respondent no. 5 that they had no objection if a petrol pump was located at the said site. This decision was taken in- consultation with the Petrol Pumps Sub Committee. Thereafter, the petrol pump was constructed after obtaining necessary sanction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee. A lease deed was also executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent no. 5 on 1st September 1-967 in respect of portion of the land as required by respondent no. 5 and the petitioner continued in possession as licencee of respondent no. 5. Thereafter, respondent no. 5 constructed a building on the said land and a completion certificate was issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee. However, on 6th January, 1972 the petitioner was served with two notices dated 23rd December, 1971 purporting to be issued under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner later learnt that notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 5th December 1968 The petitioner has challenged these notices dated 23rd December, 1971 and notifications undersections 4, 6, 9(1) and 10(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The writ petition came up for hearing on 17th July, 1985. On that date it was submitted by the petitioner that the land in question is shown as petrol pump site in the Master Plan and is presently utilised for a petrol pump, thus it is not necessary to acquire this land for the purpose mentioned in the acquisition proceedings. It was also contended that the adjoining land which was also under acquisition and belonging to S/Shri Mansimran, Hari Dang and others had been released from acquisition. A letter dated 13.8.1981 releasing the land belonging to these other persons was also produced by the petitioner.

(3.) By order dated 17.7.1985 the petitioner was directed to make a representation to the respondents seeking release of his land as well. Accordingly, a representation was made by the petitioner to the respondents. The respondents however agreed to release the land from acquisition only if certain conditions were fulfilled by the petitioner. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 10th October, 1988 written by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner that as soon as the petitioner pays the misuse charges, the acquisition of land will be withdrawn. The petitioner was held liable to pay misuse charges because though the land was ear marked for petrol pump in master/zonal plan, according to the lease deed the land was given for construction of pottery factory and since the petrol pump was constructed without prior approval it was treated as misuse of the plot. The petitioner was also advised to withdraw the writ petition pending in the High Court to enable them to release the land.