MALOOK NAGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appropriate Government issued a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) (4) of the Land acquisition Act (hereinafter described as the act) on 28th November, 2002 acquiring land measuring 8 bighas 6 biswas in Village Bahapur, new Delhi for a public purpose namely 'planned Development of Delhi'. It was also stated in the said notification that in terms of section 17 (4) of the Act, provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply. The petitioners who claimed to be recorded owners of the land measuring 2 bighas 16 biswas from the said land have challenged the above notification issued by the Appropriate Government on different grounds in the present writ petition. Along with the writ, the petitioners had filed application for stay being CM 12100/2002 in cw 6967/2003. The Bench, while dealing with the matter while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. Vs. State of Maharasthra and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 134, declined the stay by pasing the following order passed on 6th November, 2003. The relevant part of the order reads as under :-

(2.) The above order of the Division Bench was challenged by the petitioner in that writ petition before the Supreme Court in Special leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 23185/2003 titled as Malook Nagar and Ors. Vs. Land acquisition Collector and Ors which was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 19th December, 2003 by passing the following order :- for Petitioner (s) Mr. P. P. Malhotra, sr. Adv. Mr. Vineet Malhotra,adv. Mr. Shallendra Sharma,adv. Ms. Binu tamta,adv For Respondent (s) Mr. Mukul rohtagi, ASG, Mr. V. B. Saharya, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order issue notice. It is recorded that learned additional solicitor General is representing the respondents. Therefore formal service of notice is dispensed with. The special leave petition is dismissed. The High court shall, however, determine prima facie the approximate value of the land on the basis of material which may be produced before it. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties the respondent shall deposit with the High Court an amount equivalent to 80% of the amount so determined by the High Court. It will also be open to the High Court to issue directions regarding the withdrawal of the amount by the respondent as it may think fit. It is requested that the matter may be taken up for determination of the value by the High Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. "

(3.) It is clear from the above order that we are called upon to determine prima facie the proximate value of land on the basis of the material before us and directs the respondents to deposit 80% of the said amount and also to pass such directions in regard to the withdrawal of the said amounts by the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset and very fairly stated that they are not questioning the legality and/or validity of the notification issued under section 4 of the ct nor are they pressing the relief of injunction against the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land. Their prayer before the court is Only for expeditious disposal of the writ petition in regard to the quantum of compensation in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court. We are also of the view that this Court is not called upon now to adjudicate upon the merit or otherwise of the contentions raised in the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition, but only have to determine the amount of compensation payable to the rightful claimant in light of the fair market value of the acquired land. Thus now we proceed to discuss the only surviving aspect of the case.