NARAIN DASS Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the first round of litigation that concluded with the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 31st May, 2005, the petitioners had challenged the validity of notifications issued under Section 4 and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The principal ground of attack, mounted in the said earlier petitions was that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. It was alternatively argued that in terms of the policy of the Government, the lands owned by the petitioners Could not be acquired as the same were situate within 50 metres of the village abadi. Rejecting the challenge to the validity of the enquiry, this court held that the acquisition in question was for a public purpose and that the original record produced before the Court sufficiently showed that the objections filed by the petitioners had been considered by the Collector in detail not only in the note sheet but also in the report submitted to the competent authority. Relying upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Jyantilal Amratlal Shodhan Vs. F.N. Rana & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 648, Sam Hiring Co. Vs. A.R. Bhujbal & Ors., JT 1996 (2) SC 406 and Tej Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2414, the Court held that since an opportunity had been given to the petitioners and the objections considered, the principles of natural justice stood complied with.

(2.) In so far as the alternative contention regarding the existence of a Government policy and a possible exclusion of the petitioners' lands from acquisition under the same was concerned; this Court declined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings for a two-fold reason. Firstly, this Court held that there was nothing on record to show whether the policy in question was still in force. Secondly, the Court held that even if the policy was in force, it was for the concerned authorities to examine the relevant facts while applying the provisions of the policy to the lands in question. The following observations are in this regard apposite :-

(3.) The Court, accordingly, left the issue regarding exclusion of the land owned by the petitioners under the policy open. The Court recorded a concession made on behalf of the petitioners that they did not press their challenge to the acquisition proceedings on the touchstone of the Government policy and would be content if their representation under Section 48 of the Act is directed to be considered by the competent authority and a decision taken on merits in regard to denotification of the land. Support in that regard was drawn by the petitioners from a Division Bench decision of this Court in Daya Nand (Shri) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2004IV AD (Delhi) 313. The result was that the petitions filed by the petitioners were disposed of with the following directions :-