RAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the notification which has been issued under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land in Village Kakrola.

(2.) The land is proposed to be acquired for planned development of Delhi for the Dawarka (Papankala) Project. It has been explained by the respondents that the land is required for Phase-II of the said project and despite the award having been made on 2nd April, 1993, the entire possession of the land has not been taken over by the respondents because of the obstructions which have been put in the way of the same. It is contended by the petitioner that the notification under Section 4 of the Act is bad in law because there was no justification for invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Act.

(3.) We find no merit in this contention. The Dawarka Project has been underway for quite sometime. Allotments have been made to a large number of co-operative societies in Phase-I as is evident from the judgment of Shri Bhagwan & another v. Union of India 1991 Vol.II Delhi Lawyer 59. The present land is required for Phase-II and the project is integrated. The land in question has been declared as a development area and in order that the project should be completed expeditiously the respondents have invoked the provisions of Section 17 of the Act which in our opinion is valid.It has been contended that the respondents do not have any money to pay and the acquisition of the land be quashed. We find no merit in this.On the last date of hearing, the Land Acquisition Collector had appeared in Court and made statement that approximately Rs.75 crores have already been distributed. There is no admission by the respondents that they have no money to pay for the acquisition of the land. A bare assertion in this behalf made by the petitioner is without any basis. We have no manner of doubt that compensation will be paid in accordance with law.