SUNIL GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before we advert to issue raised in this appeal it would be necessary to note all the factual events which took place as this case has chequered history. However, before we proceed to take note of the facts, we may point out at the outset that the appellant herein had filed an application (IA No.1226/2008) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Suit no. 2296/2007 seeking injunction order restraining the respondent No. 5 the Land Acquisition Collector from making any award in respect of plaintiff's land comprised in Khasra No.193 min. situated in the revenue estate of village Bijwasan Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi for which notification under Section 4 as well as declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had already been issued. The learned single Judge has dismissed that application vide orders dated 29th April, 2008 against which present appeal is preferred.

(2.) The dispute is in respect of land forming part of Khasra no.193 min. situated within the revenue estate of Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli. This khasra number comprises of 130 Bighas 6 Biswas land. Out of this land 19 bighas and 7 biswas was acquired by the Central Government vide Award no.29/85-86 for the purpose of utilization of this land by the National Security Guard (NSG).

(3.) In respect of another chunk of land out of this Khasra number, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Central Government on 18th July, 1986 proposing to acquire 26 bighas and 15 biswas. It was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act on 21st July 1986. The appellant herein challenged the validity of the aforesaid notifications by filing Writ Petition no. 1804/1987. This writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17th December, 2004 One of the reasons given while dismissing the said writ petition was that the appellant had no locus standi to file the petition challenging the validity of these notifications as he was subsequent purchaser of the property in question. While holding so, the averments made by the respondents in the counter-affidavit were taken into consideration wherein it was explained by the respondents that after the issuance of two notifications, land stood acquired and possession was also taken on 16th January, 1987 and handed over to National Security Guard who were in quite and peaceful possession of the land since then.