MOHAMMAD ISHAQ Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the land in question which has been acquired by the respondent is a built up area and no acquisition could have taken place.

(2.) We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as this Court in Nirmalendu Dev Nath and others v. Union of India and others, 75 (1998) Delhi Law Times 765, relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Roshanara Begum vs. Union of India and others. 61 (1996) DLT 206, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Murari and others vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 1 SCC 15, took the view that even a built up area can be acquired. In this regard it was held as follows:-

(3.) Learned counsel next contends that the acquisition proceedings are not complete inasmuch as the possession of the land over which structures have been built is still with the appellants. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. We do not find any merit in the same. In Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. A.Viswam (dead) by Lrs., (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 259 it has been held by the Supreme Court that where it is not possible to take over actual physical possession of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer can take possession of the land on paper by recording a memorandum to that effect in the presence of the witnesses. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust. Amritsar vs. State of Punjab and Others reported at (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 212.