PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof quashing the acquisition which was initiated by virtue of the notification dated 21.03.2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners also seek the quashing of the declaration dated 19.03.2004 under Section 6 of the said Act on the ground that the said notifications are contrary to the Constitution. Another prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to compensate the petitioners with the profit earned by the respondents by letting out the land acquired from them for private gain.

(2.) THE facts are that the petitioners, who are separate individuals, together own about 25 acres of land in Village Barwala. The said land of the petitioners formed part of the 3000 hectares of land which was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of "Rohini Residential Scheme" by virtue of a notification dated 21.03.2003 issued under Section 4 of the said Act. As mentioned above, the Section 6 declaration was issued on 19.03.2004. Thereafter the award was made on 05.08.2005. Possession of the land in question was also admittedly taken. It is also the admitted case of the petitioners that compensation has been received by the petitioners on various dates. However, Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the said Act have been filed by the petitioners, which are pending. In other words, it is an admitted position that till date, the petitioners had not objected to the acquisition or the award.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioners that while the land had been acquired for the public purpose of the "Rohini Residential Scheme", the same has not materialized and, instead, the land is being diverted for the purposes of setting up of a Heliport. For this, the DDA is receiving a huge sum of money to the extent of Rs. 52.94 crores in the first instance along with recurring receipts of ground rent for each year subsequently. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents cannot profit at the cost of the petitioners and the fact that they are doing so is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the acquisition ought to be struck down and the land be returned to them.