Delhi High Court
Darya Datta Chawla vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: 29(1986)DLT271
JUDGMENT Leila Seth, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking issue of Writ of Certiorari declaring that the land in suit, Khasra Nos. 1438/5-16, 1439/(SIC), and 1431/3-16 is not covered by Section 6 notification issued by the respondents on 7th June, 1985. It is stated that a notification under Section 4 was issued on 25th November, 1970 by which the Lt. Government of Delhi required certain lands to be taken at Government expense. The said notification exempted three types of lands from the purview of the notification. In terms of the Clause (c) of the said notification, the land in respect of which building plan were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi before 5th of November, 1980 was to be exempted rom the provisions of the said notification. This was followed by a notification of 7th June, 1985 under Section 6 by which a declaration was made. This notification also gave details of land including the land in the present with petition. This has brought the present petitioner to the Court.
2. Apart from the other objections which were raised to the acquisition, the petitioner had averred that the petitioner had built a farm house and plans were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 7th March, 1972 and, therefore, the land of the petitioner was exempted even in terms of the Clause (c) of the Section 4 notification and thus, Section 6 notification covering the land of the petitioner was without jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, though other points had been raised at the admission stage, the counsel for the petitioner, did not want to urge them, but rather urged this point in the forefront. That is why we are not saying anything on the points of law which had been raised other than the one in the present petition. Mr. Sabharwal appears for the Delhi Administration. On the last date of hearing we had asked him to check up the face with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on this aspect only. Mr. Sabharwal has stated that he has got instructions from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and he has been instructed to state that the statement made in the petition that the plans of the petitioner was sanctioned by the Corporation as far back as 7th March, 1972 is correct. In that view of the matter, it cannot be disputed that the land of the petitioner was exempted in terms of the notification of 25th November, 1980 issued under Section 4. As the land was not and could not be covered under Section 4 notification, the declaration made under Section 6 notification purporting to cover the land of the petitioner was obviously a nullity and without jurisdiction.
3. In the result, we allow the petition and issue a writ quashing the notification of 7th June, 1985 in so far as it concerns the land of the petitioner, mentioned in the writ petition.
4. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.