Delhi High Court
Raheja Hospital And Pshychiatric ... vs Land Acquisition Collector And Ors. on 4 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003VIIAD(DELHI)180, 106(2003)DLT552, 2003(70)DRJ601
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: A.K. Sikri
JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. By Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the purpose, namely, "Dwarka Phase II, Delhi under Planned Development of Delhi" large area was sought to be acquired. The Notification is produced on record at page 33. Objections were invited and thereafter declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on 7th December, 2001. Considering the urgency, Section 17(1) of the Act was invoked on 15th March, 2002 and possession of almost entire area has been taken covered under the said Notification on 14th August, 2002. The present petition is filed on 16th April, 2002, and because of the interim orders made by the Court possession of this land could not be taken by the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed about the exercise of his rights under Section 5A of the Act. In para 15 he has narrated in substance the objections raised by him. It appears that after examining the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 5A the Land Acquisition Collector held as under:-
"Dr. H.C. Raheja has filed an objection vide serial No. 120 for Khasra No. 24/22(1-9), 23/1 (3-07), 24/1 (2-091), 25/2 (5-01), 3/4-02), 8/2 (1-03) 9(4-10) total 22-01 on the grounds that land is being used for Rehabilitation center since 195 for Psychiatric Research and pleaded for land to be left out from preview of notification. They have further stated that there is no institution in Delhi for such purposes because of large space requirement. However, under paper filed along with notification, they have also taken the plea that this is a sanction Farm House and has the left out of acquisition proceeding.
The plea of the landowner seems to be contradictory on one hand and is claimed to be used for hospital but on the other hand it is purported to be used as a Farm House.
Govt. may take a view to provide appropriate site for location of hospital etc. in purposed area to be developed by DDA.
Note: Order of Hon'ble L.G. Dt. 30.5.1996 that sanction Farm House should not be acquired."
3. It is after considering the Notification that declaration under Section 6 has been issued followed by Notification under Section 17(1) and possession of other land had been already taken. Suffice it to say that from the report it is clear that it is not a farm house. Learned counsel stated that there is a rehabilitation center, clinics, Ward, and a production unit run by patients, activities such as sports, exercise, meditation, yoga and treatment is imparted to the mentally challenged patients and also patients who are suffering from drugs and alcoholic addictions. Learned counsel's contention is that Section 5A report has not been properly considered by the acquiring body and, therefore, the acquisition is bad.
4. As pointed out by the Apex Court in para 4 in the case of General Manager, Telecommunication V. Madan Mohan Pradhan reported in (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 268, purpose of enquiry under Section 5(A) is only to show convenient and suitable land would be available other than the land sought to be acquired or there is no public purpose. In the instant case, there being a public purpose and the entire land is acquired for Planned Development of Dwarka, there is no question that alternative land can be shown by the petitioner. He has not done that exercise and has requested that the plot may not be acquired. He has not said about large area. We find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.
5. Section 6 of the Act is required to be perused for this purpose. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 reads as under:-
"6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-
(1) xxx (2) xxx (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration the Appropriate Government may acquire the land in a manner hereinafter appearing."
6. Thus, land is needed for a public purpose can be said when there is a declaration to that effect. Once such a declaration is made it is not open for the Court to sit in appeal over the decision rendered by the Competent Authority. If opportunity is not given which is required to be given under Section 5(A) of the Act, the case would be quite different. But here opportunity was given and it is not the grievance made by the learned counsel that there is non-compliance with Section 5A of the Act. But his grievance is that it is not properly considered. Such a plea is not even based on record. It is further contended that there is a farm house and, therefore, it could not be acquired in view of the policy of the Government. It may be noted that in view of what is stated hereinabove there is a hospital and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is farm house. At the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Act the hospital was in existence. We are required to consider the public purpose. Once a Notification has been issued and declaration has been made, then it is not open for the Court to examine whether it is a public purpose or not. It is a satisfaction of the Competent Authority. Public purpose is more important than the individual purpose. In the case of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. etc. etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. the Apex Court has pointed out that which purpose is more beneficial than the one for which land is sought to be acquired is not to be gone into by the Court. Comparative utility of the public purpose etc. cannot be examined by the Court, and in this view of the matter, we find no merits in the matter and on admitted facts petition is required to be dismissed. It may be noted that in the instant case award has also been made by the Competent Authority. The petition is dismissed accordingly. Interim order stands vacated.