SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions call in question the validity of a preliminary notification, dated 25th November, 1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") and a declaration under Section 6 thereof, dated 18th June, 1985. A mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the possession of the land to the petitioners has also been prayed for. The facts giving rise to the petitions may be briefly summarised as under:

(2.) A large extent of land situate in 13 South Delhi villages including that situate in Villages Shayoorpur, Maidan Garhi, Saidul-Ajaib, Rajpur Khurd, Satbari & Chattarpur, Delhi was notified for acquisition in terms of a preliminary notification dated 25th November, 1980. A declaration under Section 6 followed on 18th June, 1985. Different awards were, on the basis of the said notifications, made from time to time, including the awards impugned in these petitions. Much after the completion of the proceedings in terms of the notifications mentioned above, the petitioners filed the present batch of writ petitions, in which the petitioners originally prayed for a writ of mandamus simpliciter, directing the respondents to hand over the physical possession of the land acquired from them in view of the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India (C.W.P. 1639/85) and the directions issued by another Bench in Balbir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (C.W.P. No. 51/89). Some of the petitions were subsequently amended in the year 1992 to include a prayer for a writ of certiorari, quashing the notifications aforementioned, as also the award made in respect of the lands acquired from the petitioners. What is significant is that even after the amendment, the case of the petitioners continues to rest entirely on the premise that the judgment of this Court in Balak Ram Gupta's case (supra) had the effect of quashing the acquisition proceedings in their entirety, regardless whether or not the owners were parties to the said petitions or any one of them. Support, for that plea, is drawn mainly from the order passed by this Court in Balbir Singh's case (supra), whereby the respondents were directed to hand over the possession of the land to all those from whom the same had been acquired after the owners had deposited back the compensation, received by them together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

(3.) Suffice it to say that apart from the plea urged on the strength of the aforementioned two decisions of this Court, no foundation has been laid in the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, for an effective challenge to the validity of the impugned notifications except in the case of Santosh Kumar v. Union of India, [W.P.(C) No. 809/92], in which it is additionally pleaded that since the notifications in question.have been quashed qua interests of Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, co-owner of the petitioner in the said case, the same is liable to be quashed even qua the petitioner.