RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the acquisition proceedings with respect to his land measuring 5 Bighas and 17 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 3987/186 to 191 (C-4), 2988/186 to 191 (C-4), 3989/186 to 191 (C-3), 3990/186 to 191 (C-4), 3991 /186 to 191 (C-1) and 3992/186 to 191 (5- 1) situated in Village Karkardooma, Delhi. The petitioner has challenged the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 13.11.1959 and the declaration under Section 6 dated 7.11.1968 and the award bearing No. 21/70-71 dated 28.7.1970.

(2.) The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that on account of long lapse of time since the date of the award the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and, therefore, they are liable to be quashed in toto. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings being on the sole ground of delay in taking possession, the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Satyendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1994 (1) Apex Decisions (Delhi) 242=54 (1994) DLT 181 (DB). In the said decision an individual house property bearing No. IX /3335, Kucha Bajrang Bali, Bazaar Sita Ram, Delhi, constructed on a plot of 853 sq.yds. was involved. The acquisition proceedings started with the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 1.7.1965 and cluminated in the award dated 30.3.1974. The judgment of this Court isdated 6.1.1994 and it is noted that the possession of the property had still not been taken by the respondents as required under Section 16 of the Act. The case of the petitioners in the said case was that the purpose of acquisition stood frustrated in view of the long lapse of time and the acquisition proceedings were thus rendered mala fide. The Government did not file any counter affidavit in response to the writ petition. Thus there was no effort on the part of the Government to explain the delay in taking possession of the acquired property. The Court noted that it was unfortunate that the authorities remained complacent all these years and the petitioner had to approach the Court ultimately. It was also observed that under Section 16 of the Act the possession has to be taken within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. There was no explanation forthcoming as to why possession had not been taken during all the intervening years. Under these circumstances the Court set aside the award, the notification and the declaration.

(3.) In reply the learned Counsel for the respondent-DDA brought out the following undisputed facts: