R.D. BHANOT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT factual matrix in this case is followed by long tale of legal battles. For proper adjudication of the issue involved, it would be necessary to take stock of the legal developments as well, which would be noted while narrating the facts of the case.

(2.) THE respondent issued the notification dated 25.11.1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the ?Act?) whereby it was proposed to acquire a large chunk of land situate in the revenue estate of Village Chattarpur, Satbari, Maidan Gari, Shayoor Pur and Rajpur Khurd. Objections under Section 5-A of the Act were invited. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued vide notification dated 27.5.1985, inter alia, stating that the Lt. Governor was satisfied that the land is required to be taken by the Government at public expenses for a public purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi. In respect of Village Satbari, the land of the petitioner herein was also mentioned, which is covered by Khasra No.687 min. (4-15), 688 (4-16) and 689 (4-18). The petitioner at that stage filed the instant petition in May, 1986 challenging the aforesaid notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The main reason for challenge, as set up in the petition, is that within three years of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the LAC did not forward his report to the Government as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act and because of this non-action the declaration under Section 6 was illegal.

(3.) THE Division Bench after hearing the matter pronounced its judgment on 18.11.1988, which is reported as Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India, 38 (1999) DLT 243. The contention of the petitioners in those writ petitions was that though the Land Acquisition Collector had issued notices under Section 5-A of the Act, but he did not give any opportunity of hearing to the objectors and finally on 4.6.1985, another LAC made a non-speaking report to the authorities under Section 5-A of the Act on the basis of which the Lt. Governor had issued the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act. This contention found favour with the Division Bench. Following the aforesaid judgment, in many other cases declarations under Section 6 of the Act were quashed. In some of the cases where even the possession was taken, the respondents were directed to restore that possession and take back the compensation given to the land owners with interest. One such case was SudanSingh v. Union of India (CWP No.920/1986) decided on 17.12.1996. In that case, however, the Delhi Development Authority challenged the order passed by this Court. The Supreme Court in DDA v. Sudan Singh, (1997) 5 SCC 430 considered the judgment in the case of Balak Ram Gupta and expressed reservations about the same. The issue again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in DelhiAdministration v. Gurdeep Singh Uban, JT (1999) 7 SC 44 (hereinafter referred to as 'Gurdeep Singh Uban I'). The Supreme Court in this case held that the judgment in Balak Ram Gupta's case (supra) was not a judgment in rem and would be confined to only those writ petitions which were covered by that judgment. The appeal of the Delhi Administration was allowed and the writ petitions filed in this Court were dismissed on the ground that they had not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act and therefore, it was not open to them to raise the issue of non- consideration of the objections and thus, principle in Balak Ram Gupta (supra) would not be applicable to them.