ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners raise challenge to the notification dated 7th March, 1988 issued by the appropriate Government under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and notification dated 12th April, 1988 wherein the respondent official was directed to take possession of the acquitted land by invoking emergency provisions of Section 17 of the Act and also prayed for quashing of the acquisition proceedings in regard to the property of the Petitioner measuring 11 biswas in the revenue estate of Village Azadpur, Delhi.

(2.) This Writ Petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (A.K. Sikri, J.) was a party, vide judgment dated 31st May, 2004 wherein the Court held as under :- 23. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this writ petition is without any merit. The petitioners are precluded from challenging the acquisition on the grounds mentioned above, namely, there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act or that there was no satisfaction of the Lt. Governor under Section 17(4) of the Act or that there was no application of mind by the Land and Building Department or the Competent Authority regarding need of the land for acquisition. The various judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the aforesaid submission would also be of no avail. 24. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.

(3.) The present application has been filed for recalling and modification of the above judgment on the ground that certain issues were not appropriately argued before the Court. The Petitioners were in possession of the land in question and were never dispossessed on 22nd March, 1990. As such the finding recorded by the Court suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no application of mind by the Competent Authority for invoking the provisions of Section 14 and 4 of the Act which took away the salutary and most valuable right given by the Legislature to the objector under Section 5(a) of the Act. The possession report of the Respondents is sought to be belied on the ground that there were 70-80 eucalyptus trees of ripe age, standing on the land in question and this vitiates the report. Lastly, certain judgments were not considered by the Court. On all these grounds the applicant presses before the Court that the judgment should be recalled and acquisition proceedings be quashed as prayed.