ALL INDIA MINORITIES WELFARE TRUST Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order we would dispose of all the above nine writ petitions though they relate to different villages but give rise to common question of law and fact. In particular facts of civil writ petition No. 2190/90 can be referred. The petitioner All India Minorities Welfare Trust claims to be looking after the weaker sections. The proper Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 22.7.89 acquiring land measuring about 3500 hectares. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5(A). Whereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.6.90. This declaration included the land of the petitioners as well as some constructed houses. The respondents issued another notification for taking possession of land. The petitioner and other persons whose interest they are looking after is stated to be carrying on small businesses in different areas. The validity of the notification was challenged on the ground that the petitioner would be rendered homeless and demolishing the property of the petitioner would be noway in public interest. On the contrary it would be the wastage of public money. It was also the case of the petitioner that the land was being acquired without following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. Mandatory requirements of Section 4(1) were not carried out and in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jugraj Singh vs. Jaswant Singh AIR 1971 SC 761, the notification was liable to be quashed. The land of the petitioners was acquired for a public purpose namely 'Channelisation of River 'Yamuna'. The land was from the Revenue estate of Village Jasola and according to the petitioners, it was called as Abdul Fazal Enclave, Part-II. Like the petitioners' case, the lands in the other eight villages were also acquired vide same notification. In other words, the notification dated 23.6.89 and declaration under Section 6 dated 22.6.90 relates to the following nine villages:

(2.) IN terms of the view taken by A.K.Sikri, J, all these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, the Court specifically upheld the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 and the Acquisition taken in furtherance thereto. The view of the larger Bench is binding on this Court and in any case, we have no reason to take a different view. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while relying upon Para 73 of the judgment contended that this Court should issue a direction to the respondents to provide residential and/or commercial accommodation to the petitioners. We see no reason to issue any such mandamus in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Whatever has been said in the judgment of Baldev Singh Dhillion's case (supra) would operate in accordance with law and we intend to make no further additions or subtractions in the judgment. Consequently, all these writ petitions are dismissed for the reasons stated in the Baldev Singh Dhillion's case supra. The said judgment would hold the view for all intent and purposes and we would not make any further directions eitherway in the above cases. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.