RAJEEV JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to challenge the acquisition proceedings in respect of their land located at Village Mahipalpur, New Delhi under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and dispensation of the hearing under Section 5-A of the said Act by invocation of the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the said Act.

(2.) The battle for acquisition of this land has been going on since 1965. A notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on 23.1.1965 for acquisition of a large chunk of land measuring 6241 bighas and 12 biswas in Village Mahipalpur, New Delhi sought for public purpose of planned development of Delhi. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was made on 22.12.1966 and another one on 26.12.1968. The land in question was really sought to be acquired for the benefit of the Airports Authority of India (for short 'AAI') for the airport. The affected parties including the petitioners who were running the business of pottery under the name of Palam Potteries filed proceedings which went up to Supreme Court. The views of the Supreme Court are found in Ravi Khullar & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors. and other connected matters (2007) 5 SCC 231. Civil Appeal No.1707/2007 filed by Palam Potteries also came to be decided by the said judgement.

(3.) The Supreme Court held that the expression "public purpose and planned development of Delhi" would include the expansion and development of the Palam Airport which was also a public purpose. This was despite the fact that though the initial development work was to be executed by the development authority subsequently the work was to be carried out by the AAI. It was held that it could not be said that there was a change of public purpose. The acquisition proceedings were upheld qua the various persons who laid the challenge but the petitioners succeeded in their challenge on a limited issue. The Supreme Court found that insofar as the acquisition of the land belonging to Palam Potteries is concerned, the proceedings lapsed for failure of the Collector to make an award within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 11-A of the said Act. Thus, it was on this technical plea that the petitioners succeeded and lived to fight another day.