SAHAB SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the validity of Notifications under section 4, Section 6 and Sections 9 & 10 and the consequent Award are challenged. Section 4 Notification was issued on 23.1.65; Section 6 Notification on 6.9.66 and Section 9 & 10 notifications on 21.5.1983. Subsequently, on 19.9.86 an Award purported to be an Award for acquisition of the petitioners' land was made. Counsel has placed a copy of the Award before me. The same be taken on record.

(2.) The petitioners submit that after the issuance of the notification under Section 6, they served a notice on the respondents on 28.9.76 under Section 55 of the D.D.A. Act, 1957, as they were entitled to get the lands released from compulsory acquisition under Sub-section 2 of Section 55. The respondents have received the said notice under Section 55. This has also been mentioned specifically in a preliminary Award made on 12.9.80. The present Award is a supplementary Award made on 19.9.86. The principal question for decision in this writ petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to getting their lands released from compulsory acquisition. Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 reads :

(3.) The object of this Section has been elaborately discussed, in the decision of this Court in CW. 721/74 wherein it is stated that private interest and the public interest are tried to be reconciled by the said provision. The provision is if at the expiration of 10 years from the date of the operation of the master plan or where such land was required or designated for compulsory acquisition and not being so acquired shall be deemed to have been released from compulsory acquisition six months after the notice to that effect is served on the Central Government. As stated above, the notice in this case was served on 28.9.76. Six months thereafter the land in question automatically stood released from compulsory acquisition and the petitioners are entitled to such a declaration The subsequent proceedings in regard to the Award on 12 9.80 and 19.9.86 were illegal and incompetent in law.