DALPAT SINGH Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dalpat Singh, petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the award dated 31st January, 1979 made by the Land Acquisition Collector and has prayed for quashing of the same. It is also the prayer of the petitioner in this petition under Articles 226-227 of the Constitution of India that respondents be restrained from taking possession or demolishing or in any way interfering with the possession of the petitioner with Khasra Nos. 849/2 min, 850/2 min in Village Mohammadpur, Munirka, New Delhi.

(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the award dated 31.1.1979 on the grounds that the authorities have acted arbitrarily and there is no application of mind, the land in question being appurtenant to the temple, was exempted under the clauses of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. It is also the contention of the petitioners that out of the total land measuring about 2 bighas 14 biswas falling in Khasra Nos. 849/2 and 8420/2/2, the respondents have already exempted the land measuring about 3 biswas for the temple and if the remaining land is permitted to be acquired and possession taken, even entrance to the temple would be blocked. Even if the land was not liable to be exempted under the Exemption Clause, still in accordance with the uniform policy followed by the Government, constructed property cannot be acquired and the property could be acquired only as per the Master Plan.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the present writ petition has obstructed the development programme as vide notification dated 13.11.1959, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land was acquired for 'Planned Development of Delhi' in the revenue estate of Village Madhopur Madeka. Section 6 declaration was issued on 16.12.1965. After due consideration of the fact that the temple was existing on the part of the land, the land was exempted and possession thereof was not taken. According to the respondents, they are entitled to take possession of the balance land covered under the terms of the award. While relying upon some judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, it is contended that the award has been made and possession having been taken, the present writ petition itself is not maintainable.