UDAY KAUSHISK Vs. LAND ACQUISION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed acquisition of about 3 bighas and 13 biswas of land belonging to him comprised in field Nos. 28.25.2, 40.5.2 and 6.1.1. situate in the Revenue Estate of Village Samlkha, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. Initially this land and others were notified under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 12th February, 1986. There was also a declaration under S. 6 read with S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land in dispute on 12th February, 1986. In pursuance of the above notifications, the land in question was sought to be taken possession of by the respondents. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court with writ petition CW 948/86 raising various objections to the proposed acquisition. This writ petition was disposed of on 23rd October, 1986. The notifications dated 12th February, 1986 issued under Ss. 4 and 6 read with S. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act were quashed by the judgment dated 23rd October, 1986. The writ petition was allowed on a very short ground, namely, that the notification under S. 4 as well as the declaration under S. 6 read with S. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act had been made on the same date. This was contrary to the provisions of S. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act which require that the declaration under S. 6 should be made after the date of publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) Subsequently the respondents have issued a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This notification was dated 10th November, 1986 on which date it was published in the Delhi Gazette. It is, however, common ground that the notification under S. 4 was published in the daily issue of the Patriot on 21st November, 1986 and in the daily issue of the Indian Express on 20th December, 1986. The notification dated 10th November, 1986 also contained a statement that the Lt. Governor, being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S. 17 of the Act were applicable to this land, was pleased under S. 17(4) of the Act to direct that the provisions of S. 5A shall not apply. This was followed by a declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 11th November, 1986. This was also gazetted on 11th November, 1986 and was also followed by another notification of the same date by which the Lt. Governor in exercise of his powers conferred under S. 17(1) of the Act directed the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi to take possession of the land on the expiration of 15 days from the date of the publication of the notification under S. 9(1) of the Act. The respondents claim that in pursuance of this they have taken possession of the land. Thereupon the present writ petition has been filed praying that the notifications dated 10th and llth November, 1986 should be quashed and the respondents should be restrained from taking possession of the land belonging to the petitioner or proceeding further with the acquisition of the land in pursuance of the above notifications.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the notification under S. 4 and the declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued in November, 1986 are again in contravention of the statutory provisions. In this regard it is pointed out that the date of publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is not the date on which the gazette publication is made but is the last of the dates on which the notification is published in the daily newspapers. As already pointed out, in this case the notification was published in the Indian Express on 20th December, 1986. Hence on the language of S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, the date of publication of the notification under S. 4 is 20th December, 1986. On the other hand the language of S.6 of the Act is clearly different. The declaration under S. 6 is made by publication in the official gazette. It is also true that this declaration is also to be published in two daily newspapers and S. 6(2) of the Act defines the date of the publication of the declaration as the last of the dates on which the declaration is published in the official gazette and two daily newspapers. However S. 17(4) of the Act lays down that the declaration under S. 6 may be made in respect of the land at any time after the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It will be seen that this sub-section takes into account the date of the declaration made under S. 6 and stipulates that that date should be subsequent to the date of the publication of the notification. Unfortunately due to some over-sight or other S. 17(4) does not refer to the date of the publication of the declaration (which has been defined in S. 6 on terms similar to those contained in S. 4). It only refers to the date on which the declaration is made under S. 6 and provides that this date should be subsequent to the date of publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The result is that for purposes of S. 17(4) one has to take into account the date of publication of the notification under S. 4(1) and the date of the making of the declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the present case the date of publication of the notification under S. 4, as already stated was 20th December, 1986. Though the date of publication of the declaration was also the same, the date of making of the declaration under S. 6 of the Act is the date on which the Lt, Governor signed the declaration. This has to be so because S. 6 itself draws a distinction between making of a declaration and the date of publication of the declaration. The result is that in the present case the declaration has been made on a date anterior to the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This is contrary to the provisions of subsec. 4 of S. 17 of the Act. In other words, the notification under S. 6 suffers from the same defect or irregularity that vitiated the declaration under S. 6 which had been issued earlier in February, 1986. In fact counsel for the Delhi Administration was not able to satisfy us that the declaration has been made after the date of publication of the notification under S. 4(1) as required by S. 17(4) of the Act. The result is that the declaration under S. 6 dated 11th November, 1986 has to be and is hereby quashed. In fact counsel for the respondents did not oppose this prayer by the petitioner.