SUDHIR CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act) issued by Delhi Administration dated 6th March, 1987, published in the Indian Express on 8th March,1987. Declaration was made on 10th March,1987 under Section 6 of the Act. The challenge to the said notification is primarily based on three grounds namely (1) lack of urgency, (ii) fraud on the power of appropriate Government and. lastely (iii) that the acquisition of the property by the respondent for official use is contrary to the approved use of the property i.e. residential.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that this property bearing No.11 Lancers Road, Delhi was acquired by the petitioner by means of gift from from his mother on 22nd May, 1963. The entire property was taken over on lease for five years by Delhi Administration on 6th January,1965. However, on 16th March, 1990 (sic.), the Administration informed the owner that property will be vacated as the same was not required any more. Instead of vacating the property as promised, the Administration issued show cause notice dated 6th September,1970 intimating as to why the property be not recquisitioned. The petitioner filed objections to the fixation of rent on 12th May,1971 and requested the respondent to vacate the premises as the same was required for his personal use. Thereupon on 31st January,1981 the Administration issued show cause notice for the acquisition of the front portion of the property. The said notice was replied on 6th February, 1981. Subsequently, in 1986 a policy decision was taken by the Administration to derequisition the property. Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immoveable Properties Act,1952 lapsed on 10th March,1987. Just few days after coming to an end of the said Act, the Adminstration issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) and on 10th March,1987 the respondent issued declaration under Section 6 of the said Act. It is against the issuance of the impugned Notification that the present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the' Notification does not state the ground of urgency. Moreover, the invocation of Section 17 ofthe Act was a fraud and misuse on the power of the Administration. The respondent was fully aware that the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act,1952 was going to lapse. Its validity was not going to be extended, instead of returning the property after the lapse of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,1952, the Administration invoked the urgency clause which is nothing but a fraud of the power of the Administration. By invoking the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act, the Administration has deprived the petitioner of his right to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. This being a residential building could not have been acquired for commercial use. The use of the building for commercial purpose is against the approved use mentioned in the Master Plan of Delhi. The lease deed executed by the mother of the petitioner with the President of India at the time of acquiring this property clearly stipulate that this buiding has to be used for residential purpose only. The property in question is situated in a densily populated area, which as per the accepted policy of the respondent cannot beacquired. The front portion of the property has been in unauthorised occupation of the respondent since 16th April,1970. The respondents have not paid any rent/compensation for the use and occupation of that portion for the last more than ten years. Moreover, the impugned notification has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P.No-2385/88.

(3.) Developing his arguments on the basis of above submissions, Mr.Jaitley contended that as the impugned notification does not disclose any urgency of taking possession particularly when the possession of the premises was already with the Delhi Administration, hence this notification has tobe declared bad in law. The very language of the notification shows non-application of mind. The notification was issued in a hurry in order to over-reach the law of the land, therefore, this notification stands vitiated on this ground also.