SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seek to quash the whole of the acquisition proceedings in respect of their property at IX/3335, Kucha Bajrang Bali, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, constructed on a plot of land measuring 853 square yards.

(2.) The notification under section 4 of (he Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') to acquire this property was issued on 1 July 1965 and declaration under section 6 issued on 20 September 1966. The award is No. 71/73-74 and is dated 30 March 1974. Because of the controversy involved in this petition it is not necessary to refer to the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners in the matter except to note that petitioners say that they have, also filed a reference petition under section 18 of the Act. This fact is though not admitted by the respondents. Be that as it may, the possession of the property has still not been taken by the respondents as required under section 16 of the Act.The petitioners also say that no amount of compensation as awarded has been tendered to them nor deposited in the court. The purpose for which the property was sought to be acquired was construction of a maternity and child welfare centre for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the fifth respondent. Petitioners say that the purpose stand frustrated and whole of the acquisition proceedings become mala fide as more than 28 years having lapsed from the date of notification undersection 4 of the Act the acquisition proceedings have not been completed. Their contention before us is that till the possession in pursuance of the award is taken under section 16 of the Act and the property vesting in the Government free from all encumberances, the acquisition proceedings are not complete. Petitioners have also said that their objections under section 5 of the Act were wrongly rejected inasmuch as the property is not suitable and cannot serve the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. We, however, find that this objection is too late in the day for the petitioners to allege.

(3.) We do not find any counter-affidavit on behalf of any of the respondents on record. However, Ms. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, said that she did receive a copy of the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 which are respectively the Union of India in the Ministry of Works & Housing; Lt. Governor, Delhi; and the Land Acquisition Collector. Fourth respondent is the Delhi Development Authority which perhaps is not concerned with the controversy in this petition, and the fifth respondent, as noted above, is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M.C.D.). In spite of the fact that the matter was heard on 4 January 1994 and again today no one appeared for respondents 1, 2 and 3 though Mr. Bhuchar put in his appearance <PG>266</PG> on behalf of the M.C.D. We required the registry to trace out the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1, 2 and 3, but it could not be traced. However, Ms. Pathak brought on record photo copy of the counter-affidavit which had been supplied to her. This was filed by Mr. U.P. Singh, Officer on Special Duty (Lit), Land & Building Department, Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and the affidavit was sworn and verified in August 1993. In this a preliminary objection has been raised that the property was acquired for a public purpose, namely, construction of maternity and child welfare centre, and that the petitioners have challenged the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act after 20 years and that the petition suffers from delays, laches and liable to be dismissed on this ground. On merit, it was submitted that the land measured 729 square yards and not 853 square yards. It was then stated that the compensation as assessed in the award was lying in the revenue deposit as unclaimed and that the amount assessed was Rs.86,094.00 as compensation. But as to when this amount was deposited, no date has been mentioned. Nothing has been said in this counter-affidavit as to why possession of the property has not been taken all this period spanning over 20 years from the date of the award. Mr. Bhuchar, learned counsel for the M.C.D., was in helpless position. He was also unable to tell us as to why possession of the property had not been taken when the property had been acquired for the purpose of construction of maternity and child welfare centre in the city. He was also unable to tell us as to when the amount was given to the Land Acquisition Collector for payment to the petitioners. Ms. Pathak challenged the very notification under section 4 of the Act and said that the delay demonstrated that there was no proper satisfaction on the part of the authorities to acquire the property for the purpose mentioned in the notification. She said the notification and also the declaration were issued mechanically and without any application of mind, and that the power exercised is colourable and null and void ab initio. We. are unable to agree with this submission coming at this late stage. Merely because there has been inaction for number of years it could not be said that there was no application of mind initially as well. She is, however, right when she says that the inordinate delay and the long lapse of time in the matter of taking possession has had the effect of snapping necessary link between the proposal for acquisition itelf and that the acquisition at this stage would be unreasonable and stand vitiated.