YOUNUS Vs. LT GOVERNOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition was instituted by the petitioners in respect of acquisition proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in relation to land measuring 4 Bighas, 12 Biswas which is situated in village Chandawali. The land is apparently a part of Khasra No. 634/8. The full particulars are to be found in the notifications relating to the acquisition. The notification under Section 4 relating to the acquisition was dated 13th November, 1959, published in the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary of that date. The notification in fact covered 34,070 acres of land situated in Delhi and around Delhi. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was dated 25th February, 1965. A copy of the notification is Annexure 'F'. The land is described in that notification as 5154/634 - min. One of the points taken in this Writ Petition was that the number is not correctly given in the notification under Section 6 but, in arguments this matter has not been pressed, because apparently, in the meantime an award has been given giving compensation to the petitioners in respect of this very land.

(2.) In fact a number of points were taken in the petition to challenge the acquisition, but due to a change in circumstances and an alteration in the law due to the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, at this stage the petitioners only rely on additional grounds which have been urged with the leave of the Court by a subsequent application. The additional grounds are set out in C. M. No. 811-W of 1973. It is stated therein that the petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 10th December, 1959, which were within the time allowed by Section 5-A. It is then stated that a notice of hearing dated llth September, 1961, which fixed 12th September, 1961, as the date of hearing was served only on petitioner No. 2. It is stated that Mohd. Younus appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector to object to the proposed acquisition on the ground that there was no plan and the notification under Section 4 was most vague. It was claimed that no notice was served on any petitioner except petitioner No. 2. A copy of the notice is filed as Annexure A-3 to these grounds.

(3.) It is claimed in the new grounds that there was no Master Plan or draft Master Plan at the time the petitioners were called upon to file objections. And furthermore, several of the petitioners were out of town in September. 1961, and had no knowledge that the proceedings were fixed for hearing. It is, therefore, claimed that the Collector had not heard the objections of the petitioner. In one of the grounds taken in these additional grounds, it is claimed that the appropriate Government issued the declaration under Section 6 without having before it the objections of the petitioners or the recommendations of the Collector. It was claimed that the Collector was bound to make an enquiry and a recommendation without which the acquisition proceedings would be liable to be quashed.