KRISHNA KUMARI UPPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Multiple rounds of litigation arising out of acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents have failed to give quietus to the controversy. The acquisition proceedings having been upheld by the Apex Court and possession of the land in consequence thereof taken, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking return of an area measuring no more than 20.50 Sq. Yd. on the ground that the said extent of land has not been legally acquired. In a nutshell, the petitioner's case is that she had purchased a plot of land measuring 470.50 Sq. Yd. in what was known as Sunlight Estate, New Delhi in terms of a sale deed dated 1st September, 1986 executed in her favour. The respondents, according to the petitioner, notified only 450 Sq. Yd. of land leaving out the balance 20.50 Sq. Yd. from acquisition. The petitioner now seeks return of the said excess area in this petition for a declaration and a writ of Mandamus filed by her. The short question that, therefore, falls for consideration is whether the relief prayed for by the petitioner can be granted in the present writ proceedings having regard to the fact that disputes relating to the measurement of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act as also the quantum of compensation and the persons to whom the same is payable can all be agitated before a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. It is time now to state few facts:

(2.) Sunlight Insurance Co. Ltd. appears to have established a colony called the 'Sunlight Estate' in the revenue estate of Village Mohammadpur, Munirka, Delhi as early as in the year 1951. In or around 1954, the petitioner claims to have purchased a plot of land admeasuring 470.5 Sq. Yd. in the said Estate comprising revenue khasra numbers 114/116/32. Three years later, the Government issued a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act and invoked Section 17 in respect of a large tract of land including Sunlight Estate. Civil suits challenging the validity of the said proceedings were filed by some of the affected land owners culminating in the judgment of the Delhi Bench of the Punjab High Court in RSA No. 72D/1962 whereby the preliminary notification was quashed. This was followed by another notification under Section 4 issued in November, 1958 which was also challenged by some of the land owners in WP(C) No. 345/1969 that came to be allowed by a single Bench of this court. An appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed but a Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court culminated in the reversal of the said judgment. The petitioner claims to have raised before the Supreme Court a plea for allotment of an alternative plot of land of the same value in the vicinity of the land acquired from her which aspect the Supreme Court declined to examine. Suffice it to say that the acquisition proceedings having been upheld, the petitioner filed a representation seeking allotment of an alternate plot of land in her favour which representation appears to have evoked no response from the authorities.

(3.) A fresh notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 of the Act invoking emergency provisions, was issued in December, 2001. These notifications were challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7403/2002 which was disposed of by an order of this court dated 20th November, 2003 with the direction that the respondents should process the application filed by the petitioner for the allotment of an alternate plot. There was some controversy regarding the authority of the counsel for the petitioner to make a concession before the court withdrawing the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. Since nothing turns on that part of the controversy, it is not necessary to dilate on the same. All that need be mentioned is that an application seeking recall of the above order disposing of the writ petition was filed by the petitioner and dismissed by the court against which the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition but later withdrew the same reserving liberty to file an appropriate writ in regard to payment of the 80% compensation before taking possession of the property and the correct determination of the compensation due to her. The possession of the land was eventually taken over by the authorities which again was challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 768/2004 inter alia on the ground that compensation in terms of Section 17(3A) of the Act had not been paid. This writ petition was also disposed of on 7th May, 2004 with a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to publish his award and to pay compensation in accordance with the same to the petitioner subject to her right to seek a reference under Section 18.