SHORI LAL JAIN Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ petitions 48 to 57 ot 1972 also. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1162 of 1971 is one of the three partners of the firm known as Messrs Jain Optical Industries, carrying on business of optical goods as a tenant in shops No. 2395/1, 2397 to 2400, Ballimaran, Delhi. The petitioners in the other petitions are tenants in other shops, all housed in building known as Kothi Nawab Loharowali, Bazar Ballimaran, Delhi (No. 2376 to 2382, 2395 to 2402), which has been acquired for the purpose of running two Government Girls Higher Secondary Schools. The first and second floors of the building were taken on rent by the Government in May, 1957 at a rent of Rs. 1150.00 per month for running the School. The ground floor of the property comprises 19 shops/godowns, one of which lias been rented to the Government and is in the use of the Government Schools. The annual rental income to the owners from these shops/godowns in the ground floor is stated to be Rs. 1135.00 per month. The acquisition of the properties of the entire building was suggested by the Directorate of Education on the ground that there was no prospect of the Government constructing Higher Secondary Schools in that area owing to non-availability of a suitable site and there being no possibility of shifting the schools outside the area since the same were meant to serve the minority community (Muslims) which comprises quite a large population in this densely populated locality. It was pointed out that the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration had paid, until April 1968, when the proposal to acquire was made by the Directorate, Rs. l,51,800.00 as rent to the owners of the buiding for the school. The schools are being run in two shifts; one in the morning and the other in the afternoon. It was also suggested that it will be profitable for the Government to acquire the entire building with the shops and godowns in the ground floor not only because of the rent it was fetcirmg but also the saving that would result to the Government in not having to pay so much by way of rent.

(2.) The notification under section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) was made on 11-12-1968. The Land Acquisition Collector made a report, on 11-3-1969, under section 5-A of the Act that no-objections had been received to the notification under secion 4(1) of the Act and that in the absence of any objection the acquisition proceedings may be processed further. It was further suggested by the Coilector that notification under section 6 of the A.ct may be made. Such a notification, under section 6 of the Act was issued on 24-4-1969 staling as follows :

(3.) The objection in C.W. 1162 of 1971 is the most comprehensive and the same was argued by Shri P. N. Lekhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, at great length, his arguments being merely adopted in the other petition. It was contended by Shri Lekhi, infer cilia., that there had been no inquiry under section 5-A of the Act and for that reason itself the acquisition was bad. In the affidavit of return filed by Shri R. N. Puri Deputy Secretary, Land and Building Department on behalf of Delhi Administration (Respondent II) it was only mentioned that the allegation in paragraph 35 of the petition concerning the absence of report under section 5-A was not admitted; it was further stated that "satisfaction" for issuing the said notification was arrived at after due consideration and that no obniection under section 5-A of the Act was received from any quarter. There was a. categorical assertion in paragraph 35 of the petition that there was no report, as contemplated by law, on The basis of which the Lt. Governor (Respondent 1) could express his satisfaction. In view of the above allegation and the manner in which it had been traversed, I directed the concerned land acquisition file to be produced. When it was produced it transpired that there was a report by the Land Acquisition Collector, as noticed above, but an even more serious lacuna was seen to exist on a perusal of the file. By a strange coincidence the file does not appear to have been put up at all before the Lt. Governor for his satisfaction to be expressed under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Such satisfaction of the, appropriate Govt.' is a condition precedent for the issue of the declaration under section 6 of the Act. It is not disputed that for the purpose of section 6 the Lt. Governor is the "appropriate government" and that he has to express his satisfaction before a declaration under that section is made. The file shows that when the above said report was received from the Collector staling that no objection had been received against acquisition a note was put up that permission may be accorded. Only the Secretary had seen the file; the file does not appear to have even been placed before the Lt. Governor at all. In view of this serious lacuna there seems to be no other option but to quash the notification issued in respect of the above building under section 6 of the Act on 24-4-1969 (copy of which is Annexure 4 to the petition).