RAJESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions challenges the legality of the acquisition of land contiguous to the existing colony called Rohini, the largest residential colony in Delhi, if not India and Asia. Phases I to IV- of Rohini have already been completed. The assailed acquisition was initiated by the publication of a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) bearing No.F.11(19)/2001/LandB/LA/20112 dated 21.3.2003. A scanned copy of the Delhi Gazette: Extraordinary reads thus:

(2.) We have scanned the Gazette for the reason that learned counsel for the Petitioners have vehemently contended that the rectangle by means of which the land which is the subject matter of the acquisition has been depicted is misleading. It will be relevant to record that if the actual map is perused, the rectangle would be longer from North to South than West to East. One of the questions that arises is whether this erroneous depiction is sufficient cause for invalidating the acquisition. The Objections received in response to the Notification have been rejected. Thereafter, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act bearing F.11(11)/2004/L and B/LA/28281, was gazetted, on 19.3.2004 In contrast to the subject Notification, this Declaration mentions the villages, together with Khasra Nos.. The villages involved in the acquisition includes Barwala, Rani Khera, Muhamadpur Majri, Karala, Begumpur, Pehladpur Bangar, Pansali, Mundka and Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithiari). It has strongly been argued that the subject Notification is so vague that it vitiates the acquisition, and that details similar to those contained in the Declaration could easily have been furnished. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 came to be issued on 4.6.2005 and Award No.6/2005-2006 has been published on 12.7.2005

(3.) The Objections under Section 5A are in great detail having been prepared by the Petitioners' s. Some of the Petitioners have filed the Report prepared by the Land Acquisition Collector pursuant to Section 5A of the Act which would be beneficial to extract. It is significant that the Report is not dated: OFFICE OF THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR NORTH WEST DISTRICT KANJHAWLA, DELHI. No. F.17/9/LA(N)/2003/ Dated: 5-A hearing S. No. Village No. of Objectors Kh.No./Area involved Comments Remarks