RAM KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the proceedings taken by respondents to acquire their property No. 2527-2539 situated in Tiraha Behraham Khan, Darya Ganj, New Delhi under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Facts in brief are that Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 3.1.1979 was issued expressing intention of the Government to acquire petitioner's property for public purpose i.e. running a Government Industrial Middle School. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 17.9.1982 and notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued on 20.12.1982. The petition was instituted on 7.1.1983 challenging the action of the respondents in acquiring the property, inter alia on the grounds that the Government Industrial Public School had already been running in the premises under acquisition for the last more than sixty years. In view of this long and continued running of the school no fresh public purpose had arisen in favour of the Government so as to acquire the property in question. It was alleged that the said Industrial School had since been shifted to another newly built property, situated in the same locality where the school was then running its classes since about 1978- 79 more effectively and efficiently. In view of this fact that the school had already been shifted to a new building, the purpose for which the land in question was sought to be acquired had become redundant and frustrated. In addition the petitioner also challenged the action of the respondents to acquire the property as mala-fide and full of malice. The petitioner made reference to earlier Notification No. 3198 dated 11.6.1924, issued under Section 4 of the Act, notice under Section 9 of the Act dated 30.7.1924 and the objections which the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had filed on 19.8.1924 and finally to the Resolution dated 3.2.1925 and 16.12.1924 of Delhi Municipality alleging that this very property was previously sought to be acquired for the same public purpose. Objections were raised by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. On acceptance of those objections the acquisition proceedings were dropped. In the resolution passed on 3.2.1925 it was made very clear and specific that the Head Master and Tehsildar be required to find another suitable house in the neighbourhood to run the school. The petitioner has also alleged that it was due to malice that the proceedings have been initiated afresh. The petitioner had taken out eviction proceedings against the school. Only after the permission was granted to the petitioner by the Competent Authority to file ejectment petition that the notification under challenge was not issued.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the respondents on the affidavit of Sim S.N. Sharma, Dy. Director, Education, Delhi Administration stating that the acquisition is for public purpose, namely, construction of Government Industrial School for imparting general-cum-technical training. Density of population in the walled city area has increased manifold and in order to meet educational requirement, in conformity with the planned population, there should be more schools. Only three school buildings exist at present in the area. Therefore, there is scarcity of school building for which purpose property is sought to b acquired. It is, however, stated that the DDA had been requested to give no objection to the acquisition of the land in question for public purpose, namely for construction of Industrial School building as the Government is interested to impart technical and industrial know- how to the people of the locality. Respondents have not denied the fact that the rent was not paid and proceedings were taken out by the petitioners for their eviction. The respondents assigned their own reason for not paying the rent stating that no repairs were carried out by the petitioner and bills were not submitted for being paid.