RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Petitions, No 473-D of 1963 and 15-D of 1966, can be disposed of by a common judgment as the main points for determination are the same in both the cases, though the petitioners and the lands involved are different.

(2.) In Civil Writ Petition No. 473-D of 1963, the petitioners are Raj Kumar and Om Prakash. The respondents are (1) the Union of India; (2) the Chief Commissioner, Delhi; (3) the Delhi Administration ; and (4) the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioners are stated to be owners .in equal shares of a plot of land measuring about 1157 square yards and bearing khasra Nos. 1274/ 191/2/1 and 201, situate in village Kilkori within the Union Territory of Delhi, having purchased the same under a registered deed of sale, dated February 16, 1959. On November 13, 1959, the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, issued a Notification No. F. 15(iii)/ 59-LSG under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stating that the land, measuring 34070 acres and marked as Blocks Nos. A to T and X in a map which was Annexure I to the Notification and the description of which was given in Annexure II to the Notification, with the exception of certain lands specified in the notification, was required by the Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, "the planned development of Delhi". The petitioners applied to the Land Acquisition Collector for a certificate as to whether their plot was included in the said notification or any other land acquisition scheme of the Government or not. They received a reply (Annexure B), dated December 6. 1960, staling that their plot was not covered by any Government scheme. In spite of the said reply, it apears that a notification No. 24(1)/61-L&H, dated 27-7-1961, was issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which included the plot of the petitioners also. On a protest by the petitioners, a notification, No. F. 4(1)/61-L&H(i), dated September 24, 1962, (Annexure C), was issued by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, withdrawing the plot of the petitioners from acquisition in pursuance of the notification, dated 27-7-1961. But, on the same date, the Chief Commissioner issued another notification F. 4(l)/61-L&H(ii) (Annexure D) under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the plot of the petitioners staling that the same was likely to be required to be taken by the Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the "planned development of Delhi". According to the petitioners, no public notice of the substance of the said notification was published in the manner required by section 4 of the Act, but they, however, came to know about the notification subsequently and filed objections (Annexure E) to the notification on November 6, 1962, under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Their objections, inter alia, were that no publication in the locality was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, that the notification did not specify any public purpose and the purpose "planned development of Delhi", mentioned in the notification was quite a vague and indefinite one and, therefore,, if was not a public purpose, that their plot had been fully developed and, therefore, fulfilled the purpose for which the notification had been issued, and that the notification was consequently unnecessary, void, illegal, and ineffective. According to the petitioners, no opportunity of an oral hearing of the objections filed by them was afforded to them, and all that the Land Acquisition Collector did was to as petitioner I to make a statement before one Tilak Ram, a Kanungo employed in the Collector's Office. Then, on March 29, 1963, a notification, No. F. 4(1)/ 61-L&H (Annexure F), was issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the plot of the petitioner declaring that the-said plot was required .to be taken by the Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the "planned development of Delhi". It was followed by further notifications under sections 9 and 10(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereupon, the petitioners filed the present Civil Writ Petition, C.W.P. No. 473-D of 1963, praying that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued in respect of their plot be quashed, and that respondents I to 3 be forbidden from aequiring the plot of the petitioners and from dispossessing the petitioners from the said plot.

(3.) In Civil Writ Petition No. 15-D of 1966, the petitioner is Jai Rani Dass. The respondents are the same as in the other Writ Petition. By a sale deed, dated M^y 14, 1955, the petitioner purchased from one Nathu a 1/4th share of khasra No. 2778/738 measuring 1 bigha 15 biswas (the l/4th share coming to about 443 square yards) being Plot No. 10, Kailash Park, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, the said plot formed part of the Kailash Park Colony which was specifically excepted from the notification, dated November 13, 1959, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This was, however, denied by the respondents according to whom the said plot was not part of Kailash Park colony and was, therefore, covered by the notification, dated November 13, 1959. On September 21, 1963, the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, issued a notification, No. F. 1(35)/ 63-L&H (Annexure R-1), under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that the lands mentioned therein including khasra No. 2784/738/2 min, were required to be taken by the Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, "planned development of Delhi". It was followed by notifications under section 9 and 10 of the Act, and an award No. 1724 was made by the Collector on August 11, 1964. According to the petitioner, he was unaware of the aforesaid notifications, and, therefore, did not file any objections and did not appear before the Collector. Alleging that he came to know about the award a month previously, the petitioner filed the present Civil Writ Petition, C.W.P. No. 15-D of 1966, praying that the notifications under section 4 and 6 and the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the same including the award be quashed.