SHER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity and legality of the notification dated 23rd January, 1965 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and declaration under Section 6 dated 26th December, 1968 is challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioners also prayed that the said notifications are of no consequence or effect in relation to the land owned and possessed by the petitioners and respondents be restrained from forcibly entering upon the land of the petitioners without following the due process of law. It is also the prayer of the petitioners that respondents be restrained from taking any action in furtherance to the award made by the Collector in relation to the land, subject matter of the present writ petition. The challenge is founded on the premise that- (a) the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act have been kept in abeyance for 18 years. (b) the petitioners have not been paid compensation for their land and, as such, the acquisition proceedings have been vitiated in law. (c) the respondents have misused the provisions of the Act, which is impermissible. (d) the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 do not entitle the respondents to proceed with the matter any further in view of the fact that the acquisition proceeding relating to the land in question deserve to be declared invalid after the lapse of 10 years and 6 months.

(2.) It is also the contention of the petitioners that no public purpose would be achieved by acquisition of the land but on the contrary, it would deprive the user and benefit of land to large number of families. The petitioners have referred to various judgments in support of their contentions. It is contended that once one single notification under Section 4 of the Act relating to huge land was issued earlier in relation to the revenue estate of the same village, no further notification could be issued in respect of the remaining land in the revenue estate of the same village and that too by invoking the provisions of Section 4 of the Act afresh. The petitioners have also relied upon the decision in the case of Roshnara Begum v. Union of India and Others, 61 (1996) DLT 206 (FB)=AIR 1996 Delhi 206 (FB) in support of their contentions.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the respondents have given various reasons for the delay and it is their contention that question of lay has to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and that large area of the land had to be acquired to meet unprecedented influx of population in Delhi, the resources, which were available were scare, planning concepts had to be evolved and finalised, several agencies were concerned in the matter of implementation of the programme of development of Delhi, lands had to be frozen with a view to preventing undesirable activities in real estates and preventing speculative deals and/or preventing individuals from being benefited unjustifiably enriching themselves at the expenses of the society and furthermore there were interim orders passed in various cases as a result of which, the plans could not be given effect to as planned development of Delhi was one large concept of public development in Delhi. While denying the correctness of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as aforenoticed, it was specifically pleaded by the respondents that award had been made on 30th March, 1981 and possession of the land had been taken on 31st March, 1981 by the Collector. Thereafter, it was handed over to Delhi Development Authority for proper development in accordance with the plans and as contemplated under Section 22 (1) of the Delhi Development. Act on 19th May, 1981. It is also stated that on pronouncement of award on 30th March, 1981, notice and intimation was sent to the petitioners, which were received by one Shri Suraj Mal on 4th May, 1981. In these circumstances, it is prayed that writ petition be dismissed.