MADHUSUDAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment we would dispose of above two writ petitions WP(C) Nos. 2803/ 88 and 1063/88) as somewhat identical questions of law on similar facts arise for consideration of the court in both the petitions.

(2.) The petitioners claim to be owners of the agricultural land comprised within and forming part of Mustatil No. 54 Killa Nos. 22, 23, 24 measuring about 12 bighas and 9 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhartal, in the Union Territory of Delhi. The appropriate Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') intending to acquire large tracts of land in the revenue estate of village Bhavthal. The petitioners claim to have raised certain constructions on the land in question and according to them they were duly entered in the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1988.

(3.) Earlier, number of notifications were issued acquiring lands within the revenue estate of village Bhavtal in the Union Territory of Delhi and the appropriate Government then issued another notification on 4.2.88 acquiring the lands for a public purpose namely expansion of Bijwasan Oil Terminal of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd under the planned development of Delhi. This notification was not only issued under Section 4 of the Act but as well as under Section 17 of the Act, and it was directed that the provisions of sub-Section 5(a) are dispensed with. In pursuance to this notification, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.2.88. According to the petitioners the possession of the land in furtherance to this notification has not been taken and they pray for quashing of the acquisition proceedings as well as declaring that the petitioner's land is free from any acquisition proceedings and that the respondents ought not to interfere- in the actual physical and peaceful possession of the land which is subject matter of these writ petitions. According to the petitioners, the notification dated 4.2.88 and the acquisition proceedings in furtherance thereto, are liable to be quashed for the reason that the entire area is a built up area having been developed as farm house. As such, the public purpose of acquisition cannot be achieved. There was no directive of the appropriate authority under Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with recourse to the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. There being no order of the competent authority, the entire acquisition proceedings have been vitiated. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to have their lands free from the acquisition proceedings. The constructed area could not be acquired as per the policy of the Government itself.