Delhi High Court
Mr. Dalpat Singh vs The Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors. on 27 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: 129(2006)DLT824
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, S.L. Bhayana
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Mr. Dalpat Singh, petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the award dated 31st January, 1979 made by the Land Acquisition Collector and has prayed for quashing of the same. It is also the prayer of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India that respondents be restrained from taking possession or demolishing or in any way interfering with the possession of the petitioner with Khasra Nos. 849/2 min, 850/2 min in Village Mohammadpur, Munirka, New Delhi.
2. In this writ petition the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the award dated 31.01.1979 on the grounds that the authorities have acted arbitrarily and there is no application of mind, the land in question being a pertinent to the temple, was exempted under the clauses of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. It is also the contention of the petitioners that out of the total land measuring about 2 bighas 14 biswas falling in Khasra No. 849/2 and 8420/2/2, the respondents have already exempted the land measuring about 3 biswas for the temple and if the remaining land is permitted to be acquired and possession taken, even entrance to the temple would be blocked. Even if the land was not liable to be exempted under the Exemption Clause, still in accordance with the uniform policy followed by the Government, constructed property cannot be acquired and the property could be acquired only as per the Master Plan.
3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the present writ petition has obstructed the development programme as vide notification dated 13.11.1959, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi in the revenue estate of Village Madhopur Madeka. Section 6 declaration was issued on 16.12.1965. After due consideration of the fact that the temple was existing on the part of the land, the land was exempted and possession thereof was not taken. According to the respondents, they are entitled to take possession of the balance land covered under the terms of the award. While relying upon some judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, it is contended that the award has been made and possession having been taken, the present writ petition itself is not maintainable.
4. It is also the case of the respondents that no objections under Section 5A of the Act were filed and the land is being acquired for Planned Development of Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Saomi Satsang Beas v. Union of India and Ors. , Chandragauda Ramgonda Patin and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Union of India and Ors. v. Jaswant Raj Kochhar and Ors. According to the beneficiary, 77 flats remain to be constructed out of a total of 271 flats, and the land allotted to them being 32 acres, 31.18 acres has already been handed over for possession, except to the extent of a small piece of the land involved in the present case.
5. The petitioners had filed the present writ petition after a considerable delay from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The respondents were restrained from taking any action to dispossess all petitioners from the property vide order dated 12.3.1979, that is nearly 20 years after the notification under Section 4 was issued.
6. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioners would not challenge the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 and the acquisition proceedings, however, subject to they being granted liberty to approach the respondents under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, praying for denotification of the land in question by taking all objections/pleas which are available to them including the pleas taken in the writ petition. Section 48 is an independent remedy available to a land owner. It is not in dispute that possession of the land in question has not been taken so far and the petitioners are protected under the interim orders of this Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents stated that respondents would have no serious objections in considering a representation, if moved, to the competent authority, under Section 48 of the Act, provided an expeditious schedule is fixed. We find the stand of the respondent fair in as much as the remedy under Section 48 is available to the petitioners and the respondents in any case would be under obligation to consider the pleas raised in accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the parties have also referred to the various judgments of this Court in Dayanand v. Union of India; (DB); Ajit Gupta and Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. In WP(C)No. 18548-49/2005 decided on 20.3.2006 and Om Prakash Mathur v. Union of India WP(C)NO. 2151-C/2005 decided on 16.11.2005 wherein petitioners were permitted to invoke the remedy under Section 48 of the Code.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we dispose of this petition with the following directions:
A. The petitioners would be at liberty to file a representation as contemplated under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, taking up all such pleas as are available to them, including the pleas taken in this writ petition within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this order.
B. The said representation would be considered by the appropriate authority within a period of 3 months of the filing of such petition/representation and the order passed thereupon shall be communicated to all the parties to the writ petition.
C. The order passed by the appropriate authority, if adverse to the interest of the petitioner, would not be given effect to for a period of three weeks from the date of its communication.
D. The petitioner as well as the beneficiaries would be entitled to a hearing before the competent authority. The hearing would be granted to the petitioners, departments as well as the beneficiaries by the competent authority before it passes any order. The hearing would be granted within first month of the filing of the representation.
8. We make it clear that we expect the competent authority to dispose of the representations, if filed before them, as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three months from the date the representation is filed. It is necessary to mention that the notification in question, the validity of which the petitioner shall be debarred from questioning, is dated 13.11.1959 and for all these years the case was pending.
9. To the above order, the counsel appearing for the parties hardly have any objection and we even otherwise, find it to be just, fair and proper in the circumstances of the case.