SUDHIR CHADHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition Sh. Sudhir Chadha has sought the quashing of the declaration isued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called. the Act) issued vide notification No.F.9(20)/85-L&B, dated 27.5.85, pertaining to Village Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi.

(2.) Petitioner posscsscs land bearing Khasra No.860-861, measuring 10 Bighas and 14 Biswas in Village Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and published in the Delhi Gazette of 25.11.80. Petitioner did not file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, nor filed writ petition challenging the said notification. Subsequent thereto the respondent made a declaration vide notification dated 27.5.85. This declaration was made after a lapse of more than 3 years from the date ofthe notification under Section 4 of the Act. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been assailed primarily on the ground that in the case of BR.Gupta V. Union of India & Ors. C.W.No.l639/85, reported in 37 (1989) Delhi Law Times, page 150. The declaration in question already stood quashed and further proceedings set aside. The declaration pertaining to this village also having been quashed in the case of B.R. Gupta (Supra), petitioner's case is covered by that judgement, and therefore, he is entitled to the relief prayed. He has not received any compensation till date.

(3.) Mr.S.K. Mahajan appearing for the respondent contested this petition, inter alia, on the ground that the judgement of B.R.Gupta was in relation to those petitioners who were party in that case. Hence the said judgement cannot apply nor present petitioner can take any help therefrom. Judgement in B.R.Gupta's case is a judgement in persona and not in rem. The present petitioner cannot lake benefit of the same. Counsel for the respondent further contended that in B.R.Gupta and in the connected cases those petitioners had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act but the Land Acquisition Collector, who heard the parties on those objections, did not deliver the order. It was another Land Acquisition Collector, who infact passed the order. It was in this background that the Court observed that the order had been passed mechanically without application of mind, hence the declaration was quashed. But in the present case petitioner did not file objection, and therefore, question of its consideration by a different person does not apply. Hence judgement of B.R.Gupta cannot be taken benefit of by the petitioner.