Supreme Court of India
Jage Ram & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, SUPL. (4) 615 JT 1995 (9) 126, AIRONLINE 1995 SC 2, (1996) 1 RENT LR 99, (1996) 2 SCJ 105, (1996) 1 LAND LR 213, (1995) 4 CUR CC 211, (1996) 1 ICC 156, (1996) LACC 173, 1996 (1) SCC 309, 1995 SCC (SUPP) 4 615, (1996) 1 RENTLR 106, (1996) 1 ICC 161, (1996) 27 ALL LR 250, (1996) LACC 102, (1996) 1 RRR 439, 1996 ALL CJ 1 606, (1996) 2 SCJ 128, (1995) 8 JT 499 (SC), 2010 (15) SCC 169
Author: K. Ramaswamy
Bench: K. Ramaswamy
PETITIONER: JAGE RAM & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1995 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) CITATION: 1995 SCC Supl. (4) 615 JT 1995 (9) 126 1995 SCALE (6)431 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
WITH WRIT PETITION [C] NO.851 OF 1988 Jodha Ram & Ors.
V. Union of India & Ors.
O R D E R The only question raised in these two writ petitions is whether an observation is to be made by this Court to the effect that the petitioners would be entitled to allotment of alternative sites by the Delhi Development Authority. It is true that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for a defence purpose, viz., establishment of Radar. They were duly paid the compensation demanded of. One of the reliefs sought in the writ petitions is that since they have been displaced from their holdings, they need some site for construction of their house and that, therefore, the Government of India may make an effort to provide them alternative sites. We are aware of the decision rendered by this Court in State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi [(1986) 4 SCC 251 at 260]. But it depends upon the acquisition for which it was made. In that case, acquisition for which it was made. In that case, acquisition related to planned development of housing scheme by Meerut Development Authority. Therefore, though no scheme was made providing alternative sites to those displaced pesons whose lands were acquired and who themselves needed housing accommodations, a direction was given to the Meerut Development Authority to provide alternative sits for their housing purpose. Since the acquisition is only for defence purpose and if the request is acceded to, it would create innumerable complications, we are constrained not to accede to forceful pursuasive argument addressed by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.