PRABHU DAYAL BHARGAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the acquisition of 2 Bighas and 2 Biswas of land bearing Khasra No. 333/1 situated in village Bahapur, opposite okhla Railway Station, New Delhi. The notification under section 4 of the ' and Acquisition Act was issued on l8th November, 1969 and declaration under section 6 was issued on 24th March, 962. The award for compensation has been made by the Collector on 25th September, 1962.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the acquisition by this writ petition on the ground that Basant Lal and Manohar Lal were previously two owners of the land in dispute. On 10th February, 1958, Manohar Lal sold his land in dispute along with other pieces of land to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7500 .00 and Basant Lal sabsequently on 25thFebruary,1958 sold his share in the land to the petitioner for another sum of Rs. 75,000.00 . In this way the petitioners become owner of the land in dispute along with other land for Rs.l,50,000.00 . The petitioner alleges that the sale was concluded under a registered sale- deed. It, however, appears that the mutations of the sale in the revenue records were made late in 1964.

(3.) It appears that in February, 1958, the Collector issued notices for requisition or the superstructures standing on the land in dispute under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable property Act 30 of 1951 These notices were issued not to the petitioner but to the previous owners. The petitioner, however, filed objections (copy Annexure 'D') In this he stated that he had purchsed the property in dispute from Manohar Lal and Basant Lal under two sale deeds which had been registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, He raised a number of objections why the requsition should not be made. It appears that the requisition was thereafter amended. The land in dispuce was, however, sought to be acquired in pursuance of the section 4 notification made on 13th November, 1959 and section 6 declaration made on 24th March, 1962. I his notification and declaration were both duly published in the Gazette. The counter-affidavit of the respondents states that the notification under section 4 had also been published in the locality. The grievaince of the petitioner is that this notification should have been issued specifically to him since by the time the notification was issued, he had become the owner in possession of the land in dispute to the knowledge of the Collector, Delhi. The petitioner further alleges that notice under section 9 of the Act had also not been served on him and he has not had any opportunity ^ to raise objections under 5A of the Act or to make a claim before the Land Acquisition Collector and eventual reference to the District Court in respect of the compensation. It may at this stage be mentioned that in the writ petition, the petitioner has not claimed any relief in respect of the award of the Collector made on 25th September, 1962. The relief claimed is issuance of an appropriate writ in respect of the section 4 notification dated 13th November, 1959 on various grounds mentioned in the writ petition. A counter-affidavit to the writ petition has been filed by Shri Jagmehan, the then Secretary (Land and Building). Delhi Administration, and a rejoinder to the same has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.