FOUNTAINHEAD MOTELS P LTD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner assails the validity of a notification dated 25th July, 2007 issued under Sections 4 and17 of the Land Acquisition Act notifying for acquisition a total area measuring 2049 sq.m. in khasra nos. 557, 558/1 and 576 of village Aya Nagar in Delhi for the public purpose of construction of Arjangarh Metro Station on the Qutub Minar " Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS project, phase-II. The petitioner company is promoted by a non resident Indian who has constructed a hotel in the name of Hotel Claremont, Aya Nagar, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, New Delhi partly utilizing the lands underlying khasra Nos. 558/1 and 576 of Village Aya Nagar. The impugned notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi proposes to acquire the parcel of land mentioned in the same for the construction of Arjangarh metro station as already mentioned earlier. Out of the area notified for acquisition, the petitioner claims to be the owner in occupation of 12 bighas and 9 biswas including of 3 bighas and 9 biswas in khasra no. 558/1 and 1 bigha 11 biswas in khasra no. 576. The petitioner"s grievance against the acquisition is that the same is illegal and liable to be quashed inter alia for the reason that the acquisition is being made in terms of the Land Acquisition Act which stands repealed by Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. The petitioner has also questioned the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the same shall adversely affect the business of the hotel established by it and practically leave no option for the petitioner company except to shut it down if the proposed station were to be allowed to come up as per the plan prepared by the respondents.

(2.) When this petition came up for admission before us on 7th September, 2007, learned counsel for the parties submitted that they were prepared to explore the possibilities of an amicable settlement with a view to reducing the hardships that may be caused to the petitioner on account of the proposed construction of the metro station. The petitioner and the DMRC, were accordingly given time to do the needful and report further developments. The said two parties have, pursuant to that opportunity, had number of meetings to discuss possible ways and means to reduce the hardships to the petitioner company on account of the acquisition of a large extent of its frontage. To the credit of the parties, we must say that they have eventually found a solution, which is according to the learned counsel appearing for them acceptable to both the sides. Based on the discussions which the petitioner and DMRC have held, the latter has filed before us a modified lay out of the proposed Metro Station as on 8th October, 2007. Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits on the instructions of the Managing Director of the company that the changes made in the modified lay out plan for the station satisfies the petitioner subject to clarification that the proposed 6 meter wide service road shown in the plan in front of the proposed exit of the hotel would admit two way traffic so as to allow guests visiting the hotel access to the parking area for the general public on the left side of the hotel. Mr. Vibhu Shankar and Mr. Daljeet Singh, Chief Project Manager, who are present in person, have no difficulty in making that statement. According to Mr. Daljeet Singh, the proposed service road will admit two way traffic and should be available to anyone wishing to access the parking area on the left of the hotel. In that view, therefore, nothing further survives for consideration, especially when Mr. Sethi has withdrawn the challenge to the validity of the notification on the ground that the provisions under which the same was issued stand repealed by the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. Mr. Sethi, in fact, submits that the petition could be dismissed as withdrawn in the light of the settlement between the parties. We, accordingly, take the modified lay out plan of Arjangarh railway station duly signed by both the parties namely petitioner and DMRC on record and dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn.

(3.) Order Dasti.