SARDAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions are taken up for hearing together as the petitioners are co-owners of the land comprised in Khasra No. 10/30 of Village Sahipur. The extent of their land is 13 Bighas and 9 Biswas. In CWP 3184/2000 several grounds have been raised for challenging the Notification under Section 4 dated 13.11.1959 and the Declaration under Section 6 dated 12.7.1966. One of the grounds taken was that the petitioner s agricultural land/nursery could not be acquired and that the possession alleged to have been taken on 18.1.2000 was merely a paper possession and should not be taken as possession within the meaning of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). Similar is the position in CWP 4101/2000. In CWP 7839/1999 similar grounds have been taken but additionally it has been urged that the Government did not have any definite plan or proposal for development and it is for this reason that the acquisition proceedings were not being completed despite the pronouncement of the Award in 1986. It was suggested that the land, in fact, was never required for the purpose of Planned Development of Delhi .

(2.) The factual background is as follows:- Large tracts of land totalling 34070 acres were sought to be acquired under the notification dated 13.11.1959 under Section 4 for the planned development of Delhi . It also included the petitioner s land. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 12.7.1966 and even the Award had been announced on 19.9.1986. The present writ petitions were filed in 1999 and 2000, i.e. roughly 40-41 years after the Section 4 notification and 33-34 years after the Section 6 declaration. The award itself was announced on 19.9.1986 and it is only after about 13-14 years thereafter that these writ petitions have been filed. In two of the writ petitions, as indicated above, it is urged that the possession that was taken on 1.8.2000, was merely a paper possession and that too by a person-Shri Kartar Singh- who was not even the Land Acquisition Collector on that date. He was appointed as such ten days later. Two points were urged before us by Mr Dhir the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Firstly, he submitted that the possession of the lands, in question, was merely paper possession and was taken by a person, who was not then the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, according to him possession as contemplated under Section 16 of the said Act had not been taken and, consequently, the land continued to vest with the petitioners. Accordingly, he submitted that the paper possession that was taken deserves to be quashed by this Court. The second point that was urged by Mr Dhir was that the under the said Notification of 13.11.1959, 34070 acres of agricultural land were notified. It included the petitioner s land/nursery of 13 bighas 9 Biswas which being a miniscule green area, it was submitted that, no useful purpose would be served by acquiring such an area in the wake of large scale deforestation and environmental difficulties. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petitioner s land was serving the larger public interest and, therefore, the same ought to be excluded from the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr Sanjay Poddar, who appeared for the respondents, submitted that these writ petitions were liable to be dismissed at the threshold on account of two factors. The first being the inordinate delay in the filing of the petitions. He submitted that these petitions were filed 40-41 years after the initial Notification under Section 4 and 33-34 years after the Declaration under Section 6. Even the Award had been passed as far back as in 1986. He further submitted that no explanation, whatsoever, has been offered by the petitioners for approaching this Court after such a great lapse of time. The second point urged by him was that the petitioners had not, in fact, challenged the acquisition proceedings. He contended that this would be evident from examining the prayers contained in CWP 3184/2000 itself where there was no challenge to the acquisition proceedings as such. He also drew the attention of the Court to page 49 of the paper book in CWP 3184/2000. The said page is a part of the Award No. 2119-A (Supplementary) dated 19.9.1986 wherein it is clearly indicated that the petitioners had participated in the Award proceedings and had claimed compensation, clearly implying thereby, that they did not oppose or challenge the acquisition in itself. Even on merits, Mr Poddar submitted that the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners were clearly untenable. He submitted that even if it is assumed that possession had not been taken on 18.1.2000, nothing would turn upon it. This is so because possession can be taken at any time after the Award. Although, according to him, possession, in point of fact, had been taken and the land vested absolutely in the Government in terms of the Section 16 of the said Act. Insofar as the other point of the petitioner s land being a green area and already serving a public purpose was concerned, he submitted that this ground was clearly untenable as the entire lands were required for the planned development of Delhi and was to be developed as per the Master Plan.