LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-133

PRIT PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 29, 2009
PRIT PAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRTEEN petitioners have come before this Court praying that Notification no. F. 11 (25)/2005/landb/la/652 dated 25 th April, 2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Notification No. F. 11 (25)/2005/landb/la/9129 dated 7th September, 2006 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land of the petitioners, in all measuring 15 bighas 11 biswas situated in their revenue estate of village Sameypur, Delhi, be quashed and set aside on a number of grounds.

(2.) AT the outset, Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has confined himself to the plea that the impugned Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on 25th April, 2006 only envisages the construction of a road therefore, land in excess of what is legitimately required for that road could not have been notified. He does not seek to challenge the aforesaid Notification to the extent of the land actually required for the construction of the road in question or for any purpose related to that road. He says that the petitioners are ready to give up the land required for construction of the said road which, according to him, is the avowed purpose of the said Notification.

(3.) IT is his case that although the impugned Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, refers to the purpose of acquisition as, " (for construction of road in Sector 16, Rohini)" and that the subsequent notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 also states the purpose specifically as, " (laying out road in Sector 16, Rohini)", the respondents, however, have proceeded to notify larger areas of land which are admittedly not required for that road and which the respondents admittedly intend to put to some other use. He submits that the same constitutes a fraud on power being a colourable exercise and, therefore, the said actions are vitiated in law and deserve to be quashed. We are confining ourselves to this aspect alone.