DDA Vs. BISHAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment will dispose of LPA 47/1994 and W.P.(C) 2549/2010. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP 654/1980. The appellant is the Delhi Development Authority (hereafter referred to as "the DDA"), and the respondent in the appeal are the heirs of the original writ petitioners (hereafter referred to as "the original land owners"). The writ petitioner (in WP (C) 2549/2010, hereafter "Gupta Machine Tools") claims a direction to the effect that the lands which are the subject matter of the appeal, were never acquired in accordance with law and seeks consequential directions. The said writ petitioner claims rights through the original landowners.

(2.) The facts necessary for deciding the appeal and the petition are that on 13.11.1959, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire a vast tract of land which included the lands of the original writ petitioner (hereafter called "the suit lands"). By a notification dated 15.12.1966, declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter called the "Acquisition Act") was issued. The original land owner claimed to be owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 1279/1203/170, measuring 2 bighas 17 biswa and Khasra No. 1277/1203/2/70, measuring 3 bighas and 11 biswas in Village Kilokari, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. These were the suit lands. The original land owner filed the Writ Petition 654/1980 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging inter alia that the Delhi Master Plan, after considering all the materials, was finally prepared on 30.11.1961 and the Central Government approved it and consequently published it on 01.09.1962. Citing Section 15 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 (hereafter called "the Development Act") and other provisions, more particularly, Section 55, the land owner contended that since the Zonal Plan in respect of the area within which the suit lands were located, were published on 21.03.1967, the 10-year period within which land could be acquired, had expired in March 1977. The original landowner s writ petition thus sought a direction that the suit lands were not required to be kept open or in an unbuilt space nor were they subject to compulsory acquisition and that a direction ought to be given to the DDA to revoke the previous notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The land owner relied upon a notice issued to the original respondents, particularly the DDA, containing details of the ownership of the land, calling upon the DDA to either acquire or take possession of the land within six months of the date of the notice, i.e. 24.05.1979.

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, learned Single Judge had issued an ad-interim order by virtue of which any action taken in respect of the land in dispute would be subject to the result of the writ petition. The original land owner had received a notice issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, which was a notice under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, pertaining to the award. The notice was resisted on behalf of the land owner Bishan Devi by a reply dated 18.08.1986, stating that the suit land could not be acquired in view of the pendency of the writ petition.