NARESH CHANDRA Vs. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is the third round of litigation in the matter.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1's father challenged notifications of the year 1980 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land in dispute but the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the said notifications as stated in para 3 of the writ petition.

(3.) WE have carefully perused the impugned order and find no illegality in the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the impugned order it is mentioned that the development authority took possession, which is not correct. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents are not bound to exempt the land over which there are constructions. That is their discretion, and it is an administrative decision. As held in Tata Celluler v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11, this Court has a very limited scope of interference in administrative decisions. Whether to grant exemption or not requires consideration of various factors by the concerned authority. Some times grant of exemption may disrupt the entire scheme. At any event, it is not for this Court to interfere in such administrative matters.