K D MODEL SCHOOL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners' lands fall within 13 villages which have been acquired for the 'Planned Development' of Delhi. The village in question is Barwala. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) was issued on 21.3.2003 followed by a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 19.3.2004 Award dated 5.8.2005 bearing No.12/2005-06 had already been published. Mr.Poddar, learned counsel for LAC states that all the Petitioners have participated in the Award proceedings. Possession of portions of the land which were vacant i.e. not constructed upon, was taken by the Respondents on 28.9.2005 Mr.Poddar has underscored the fact that the petitions do not mention that any Objection under Section 5A of the Act had been filed by the Petitioners. No document purporting to be an objection is available on the record. Hence, a challenge to the acquisition at this stage is not permissible.

(2.) We have had an occasion of considering the subject acquisition of 13 villages in WP(C) No.15946/2004 titled as Rajesh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and others decided on 9.7.2007 in which the very same acquisition has been upheld. In some of those petitions, it had been alleged that farm houses had been constructed after taking clearance/approval of the Municipal Authorities. Even then, we were not pursuaded into returning the finding that legally constructed properties could also be acquired under the Act. Mr.Dalal has also raised an argument that the built up properties, within a distance of 100 mtrs. of acquired Lal Dora, were not the subject matter in any of the Rajesh Yadav's petition.

(3.) Mr.Dalal may be right in castigating the Respondent for not completing their statutory duties of consolidation, as envisaged under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 especially, since Notification under Section 14 of the said Act had duly been issued. However, that would have made no difference so far as acquisition is concerned. We shall assume that the Petitioners' land and buildings constructed thereon would fall within extended Lal Dora or extended abadi to use common phrases. Even if this is so, that does not insulate the Petitioners from the acquisition of their lands.