DHARAMVIR SINGH Vs. LT. GOVERNOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or similar writ, order or direction quashing the Notification dated 8 -10 -2002 bearing No. F.10/41/2002/L&B/LA 11820 under Section 4, and the Declaration of even number dated 30.12.2004 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Revenue Estate of Village Bakkarwala; and seeking protection against their dispossession from the land and from the demolition of their structures thereon; notably it has also been prayed that this Court should direct the Respondents to de -notify the land. Mr. C.B. Varma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners, has contended that without acting upon the previous acquisition, fresh steps have been taken under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act for the purposes of construction/widening of the existing road. It has not been contested, as it cannot be, that construction or widening of a road is a public purpose which is not impervious to any challenge on the grounds that it does not qualify as a public purpose. Mr. Varma has also contended that there was no justification for resorting to Section 17 of the Act in view of the delay on the part of the Respondents to complete the acquisition. The argument is that although the Notification under Section 4 took place on 8.10.2004 the purpose for which the land was acquired has not till date been fulfilled. This argument has to be summarily rejected forthwith. Keeping in view the spate of litigation and writ petitions filed by owners of the land in the wake of Section 4 Notifications, the Respondents cannot be faulted for the delay. We are not persuaded by Mr. Varma, therefore, to apply Parveen Gupta v. Union of India, 41 (1990) DLT 166. So far as reliance on Satyendra Kumar v. Union of India, 1994 (28) DRJ 264 (DB) is concerned we find it misplaced. The acquisition in that case was looked upon unfavourably since it was evident in the facts of that case that the powers had been exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations and the Respondents had not come forward to explain the delay on non -payment of compensation.

(2.) THE arguments that have been raised before us are a reiteration of the contentions voiced in W.P. (C) No. 19107 of 2005 titled Vishav Jagriti Mission v. Union of India which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in terms of the Judgment dated 7.11.2005. The Notification under Sections 4 and 17(4) as well as the Declaration under Section 6 which were challenged in these proceedings are the very same ones that have been assailed before us. The matter stands covered on all fours against the Petitioners, and we see no justification in adding to the volume of precedents by articulating our agreement thereto.

(3.) FACED with this difficulty Mr. Varma drew our attention to orders passed in W.P. (C) 13577 -666 of 2006 titled Nanak Chand v. Lt. Governor dated 21.2.2006 in which the challenge to the Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been dismissed. However, by the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petitioners' Representation under Section 48 of the Act was directed by another Division Bench to be disposed of by the Competent Authority within three months. Till a period of two weeks thereafter, the Court had protected the Petitioner's possession as well as structures. Mr. Varma has prayed that similar orders may be passed by us.