SHAKUNTALA B MODA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners through the present writ petitions have challenged the legality an the validity of the notifications No. F 7 (2) 86- L & B (1) 22-2-39, dated 23rd day of December, 1986 issued by the Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration, Delhi underfections 4 & 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 (herein fter referred to as the Act in order to facilitate reference) whereby land measuring 73 bighas. 02 biswas situated in village Rangpuri, Delhi, fully detailed in the above said notification belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the Government.

(2.) . All the above petitions are being disposed of through the present judgment as common questions of law and fact are likely to arise while disposing them of.

(3.) . Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. H.S Dalal has vehemently con- terdcd before this court that there was no application of mind before the issue of the impugned notification. Neither there is any reason nor justification for the application of the provisions of section 17 (4) of the Act in the instant case. In any case, no reason, whatsoever has been mentioned in the above said notification. It is a well established principle of law that the provisions of section 17 (4) of the Act can be applied only in those discerning few cases where there was an urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings of section 5-A of the Act should have been eliminated. According to the learned counsel all the cases of the urgency find a mention in section 17 (2) of the Act. Hence, no notification under section 17 (4) of the Act can be issued unless the case falls, well within the domain of section .17 (2). The rehabilitation of the displaced persons does not according to the learne counsel, fall within the ambit of section 17 (2) of the Act. Thus the respondents could not have made use of the provisions of the said section.