BALWANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment we would dispose of the above noticed 5 writ petitions as in all these writ petitions the Petitioners raised a common challenge to the notice dated 29.7.1986 issued under Section 9 and 10 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') and further they pray that the Respondents be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession and occupation of the Petitioners. Though, for the purposes of brevity, we would be referring to the facts of the case of Balwant & Others Vs. Union of India & Others.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the Petitioners own land measuring about 3 Bighas 12 Biswas in Khasra No.818/468 in Village Saboli, Delhi. The appropriate Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act intending to acquire the land in Village Saboli including the land belonging to the Petitioners being notification No.F.4(14)65 L & D dated 6.3.65. In furtherance to this notification declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7.1.69. The Land Acquisition Collector took the proceedings and issued notice to the interested persons. However, such notices were issued under Section 9 & 10 (1) of the Act on 29.7.86. Various awards were made by the concerned authorities including Award No.81/8687 dated 19.9.86. It is stated by the Petitioners that more than 20 years had passed from issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act but no award was passed and the Petitioners were served with notices under Section 9 & 10 of the Act in July, 1986. Relying upon certain judgments including the judgments of different High Courts in the cases of Patel Shankerbhai Mahijibhai and etc. etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1981 Gujarat 67 (DB), P.Appalamurthy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh 278, and Radhey Sham Gupta and others. Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1982 Punjab and Haryana 519 (FB), it is contended that the interests of the Petitioners is being seriously jeopardised inasmuch as the possession of their land would be taken now and they would be paid the value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market value of 20 years back. Main emphasis of the Petitioners while challenging the action of the Respondents is that it would be inequitable, unfair and the notices issued to them suffer from serious delay and they would be paid no damages for their property. In substance the only challenge raised in these petitions is that the delay of more than 17 years in issuance of such notifications/notices would vitiate the acquisition proceedings and as such the possession of their lands cannot be taken by the Respondents. However, according to the Petitioners, the notifications in question have died/expired by efflux of time and the State has become functus officio. The action of the State thus stated to be arbitrary and not an honest discharge of official duties assigning to the Respondents.

(3.) Another contention raised before us is that the statutory period for which the Master Plan had been prepared had since expired and in view of the provisions of Section 55 of Delhi Development Act, 1957 there be automatic release of the acquired land as there is no public purpose in existence.