LAKHBIR CHAND Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition and C. W. Petition No. 371 of 1972 are under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and pray for the issue of a writ, order or direction, declaring that the award No. 22/1970-71 made on 29th of July, 1970. by the Land Acquisition Collector is illegal and void, in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners and consequently quashing the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land and building of the petitioners.

(2.) One Mehta Krishan Lal was the owner in possession of an open plot of land bearing No. A-8 measuring 200 sq. yards forming part of killa No. 12 Rectangle 50 situated in village Khureji Khas, Delhi, known as Janta Park. Lakhbir Chand petitioner purchased half portion of the above-said plot i.e. 100 sq. yards, by means of a sale-deed dated Aug., 10, 1955 (copy Annexure A in C. W. Petn. No. 372 of 1972). Smt Saraswati Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Ram Prakash purchased the other half portion of the said plot i.e. 100 sq. yds. by means of a registered sale-deed dated August 10, 1955 (Copy Annexure A in C. W. Petition No. 371 of 1972) Lakhbir Chand claims to have constructed on the aforesaid land to or about the year 1958. Ram Prakash claims to have constructed on the aforesaid land in the year 1960 and both claims to be residing there with their families. It is the admitted case of the parties that the land of Khasra No. 50/12/1 (m which the land of the petitioners is included) in village Khureji Khas, Delhi was notified under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide Notification No. F-15/11/59/LSG dated November 13, 1959. This is commonly known as general notification in which 34,070 acres of land was covered. Certain owners filed objections under S. 5-A of the Act. They were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector and a report made to the appropriate Government. The Delhi Administration issued a declaration under S. 6 of the Act for the acquisition of an area measuring 2936 Bighas 5 Biswas of land situated in village Khureji Khas by the declaration dated March 18, 1966. It is again admitted that the aforesaid Khasra No. 50/12/1 in village Khureji Khas was covered by the declaration dated March 18, 1966.

(3.) The Land Acquisition Collector issued notices under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act. Lakhbir Chand claims that the Collector issued notice dated February 20, 1970 in the name of Lakhbir Chand calling upon him to put up his claim for compensation on 6th of April 1970. This notice is stated to have been received by Lakhbir Chand's daughter aged 11 years Mohini on 8-4-1970 after the date of hearing. In the reply affidavit it is stated that the notices under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act were served on Lakhbir Chand on 4-4-1970 through his daughter Mohini Sharma and the said notice called upon Lakhbir Chand to file his claim on April 20, 1970. In Ram Prakash's case the allegation is that no notice under S. 9 (3) of the Act was served on the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest. In the reply affidavit it is stated that the name of Ram Prakash did not exist in the revenue records of the village either as an owner or as an occupier, and, therefore, no notice under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act was served on Ram Prakash individually. It is, however, pleaded in both the cases that publicity as provided under S. 9 (1) of the Act was given in the locality inviting claims/objections from all the interested persons in the land notified under S. 6 of the Act in notification dated 18th of March 1966. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector, the land was measured on the spot by the Land Acquisition field staff and the details of the area proposed to be acquired are given in the award itself. It includes in it, inter alia, rectangle No. 50 Killa No. 12.00 (1-15) measuring 2 Bighas 2 Biswas. The classification of the land according to the revenue records is given as G. M. Plot. The award number 22/70/71 covering the land of the petitioners was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 29th July 1970. The present writ petitions were filed on 23rd of April 1972. Shri Manmohan Nath Madan learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urges that the provisions of S. 9 (3) of the Act are mandatory provisions of law and the non-compliance of it is fatal to the validity of all acquisition proceedings following thereafter and resulting in the award. He contends that in the notices under Ss. 9 (3) and 10 (1) of the Act, which is served on Lakhbir Chand's daughter, the land has been wrongly described as Khasra No. 50/8/2, and, therefore, there is no notice at all in respect of the land of Lakhbir Chand. He also urges that assuming the notice was duly served on April 8, 1970 for 20-4-1970, then admittedly l5 days' clear notice was not given thus vitiating the entire proceedings for making of the award and consequently the entire acquisition proceedings are void. It is further urged that the plea of the respondents that the petitioners have not suffered any prejudice by reason of the defect in the notice, under Ss. 9 (3) and 10 (1) of the Act or non-service of notice, is not legally available to them as the service of a valid notice is the mandatory requirement of law.