OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are being decided by a common order since subject matter is the same and similar arguments were addressed at the bar. Relief prayed for in both the petitions are also same, which read:-

(2.) The petitioners alleged that they are the residents of the locality known as Mahavir Enclave Part III, situated in village Palam having a total population over one lac. The said colony was in the list of 1071 colonies proposed to be regularized by the State of Delhi. There is a 33 feet wide road passing through the colony connecting village Bindapur with Dwarka/Pappan Kalan and the said road passes over the Palam drain which is going to be covered so as to provide through traffic over the said drain. The said road, which is 33 feet wide also gets narrowed down to 20 feet near its end connecting Dwarka. Respondent No. 2 with a view to provide a wider road connecting Dwarka with Pocket 3 Bindapur notification notice under Sections 4,6 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so as to enable the respondents to acquire the land for the said public purpose of widening the road to connect the above said two DDA colonies. It was alleged that the petitioners along with other similarly situated residents, total numbering to 85 were served with the public notice dated 11.1.2002 stating therein that total land measuring 6 bigha 8 biswas in village Palam is required to be taken by the respondents at the public expense for a public purpose to construct 18 meter wide road under Planned Development of Delhi. Without giving any notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to the affected residents/occupiers to make a representation to the concerned authorities, the respondents have threatened to take over the said land after demolishing the duly constructed residences/shops on one side of the connecting road, on or after 16.1.2002 and to be handed over to respondent No. 2 for the said purpose of Planned Development of Delhi. The petitioners alleged that they are not having sufficient time to make representation so as to establish their legal right as well as to point out that they are being discriminated qua the other similarly situated shops and houses on the other side of the road to whom such notice dated 11.1.2002 has not been served.

(3.) In the aforementioned back ground the petitioners sought quashing of notification issued on 11.1.2002 by which notice it was made known that possession will be taken over on or after 16.1.2002 and handed over to Delhi Development Authority through Land and Building Department.