BEHARI LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The admission of this writ petition depends on the applications of section 17(1) of the Land Aquisition Act (herein called the Act), to the facts pleaded in the petition, the reply to the show cause sotice and the rejoinder. On 16th December, 1977 notifications under sections 4, 6 and 17 (1) of the Act were issued by the Administrator of Delhi in respect of certain lands including field No. 401 belonging to petitioner No. 1. Argument of Shri J. M. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners, was confined to field No. 401. The validity of the notification under section 17(1) alone was canvassed in the long oral argument, though initially the prayer in the writ petition included the quashing of the notifications under sections 6 and 6 of the Act also. The reasons advanced for the invalidity of the order passed by the Administrator under section 17(1) requiring immediate possession to be taken of the land without hearing objections to the section 4 notification under section 5A of the Act advanced by the learned counsel are dealt with below :

(2.) (1) The main contention is that the land is neither arable nor waste within the meaning of section 17(1). This is a question of fact. In the petition it was said that section 17(1) was not applicable to the land, because it was neither waste nor arable and the same has been certified to that effect by the Deputy Commissioner at the behest of the Delhi Administration. The request of the Delhi Administration to the Deputy Commissioner was made because he was the authority to issue for the certificate. It does not mean that the Delhi Administration was dictating to the Deputy Commissioner or that the Deputy Commissioner was told not to apply his mind to the request before granting the certificate or that he should grant the certificate whether the land is arable or waste or not.

(3.) It was thes said in the petition that he petitioners have been using the land for residential purposes for quite a long time and that they did not cultivate the same for the last many years. This allegation has been denied in the reply to the show cause notice and it is alleged that the land is waste or arable and that the petitioners have not been using the land for residential purposes as there are no buildings for residential purpose built on the said land.