MOHD FAROOQ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two Petitioners claim that they are the co-owners of the land measuring 6 Biswas in Khasra No. 124 situated within the revenue estate of Village Okhla, Delhi. This land was notified for acquisition vide notification dated 4.4.1964, issued under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In furtherance to this notification, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7th December, 1966. This land was acquired for planned development of Delhi. The Collector had issued notices under Section 9 and 10 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 in the year 1983 in furtherance to which the Petitioners had filed claims. An award relating to the lands adjacent to the Petitioners' land was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 20th July, 1983 but the land of the Petitioner was left out. It is also averred by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition that the land of the Petitioner which is now sought to be acquired was earlier left out from award No. 95/83-84 relating to Village Okhla. While relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Ors. 1966 Supreme Court 1593 and in the case of Ambalal Purshottam etc., Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors., 1968 SC 1223, the Petitioners have stated that the Government cannot drift the acquisition proceedings indefinitely after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and take in hand the proceedings for assessment of compensation whenever they think it appropriate to do so. The notification as well as the acquisition proceedings are stated to be misuse and abuse of power vested in the appropriate Government. Though the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4th July, 1964 but till the time of filing of the writ petition no award had been made by the Respondents. Inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in completing the acquisition proceedings and the planned development of Delhi is not a public purpose for which the land of the Petitioner could be acquired and in any case is not in conformity with the master plan which has already expired. Denial of payment of compensation for all this period according to the Petitioners have seriously prejudiced their interests. For these reasons the Petitioners pray in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act and of the notices issued under Section 9 and 10 of the Act. They further pray that their land measuring 6 Biswas be released from the acquisition.

(2.) Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the DDA wherein it has been stated that notification under Section 6 of the Act has already been issued though the award was not pronounced so far.

(3.) At the very outset, we may notice that there is no averment made in this Writ Petition that Petitioner had filed objections under Section 5(A) of the Act. The averments which have been made in the Writ Petition could be of any help to the Petitioner only if he had raised appropriate objections before the Competent Authority at the appropriate stage. On the one hand the Petitioner did not file any objections under Section 5(A) of the Act while on the other he filed his claim under Section 9 and 10 of the Act without any protest or objection. In fact the Petitioner claimed a higher value for acquisition of his land @ Rs. 2,000/- per square yard. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Case of Delhi Administration vs. Gurdeep Singh Uban & Ors., JT 1999 Vol. 9 SC 223 the land owner or a claimant who did not file objections under Section 5(a) of the Act cannot be stopped from raising a challenge to the validity, legality and correctness of the notifications issued under Section 4 and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. On this short ground the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.