Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. On October 3, 1997, after about eleven months of the decision of the Supreme Court, Shanti Sports Club through Satish Khosla addressed a representation to the Minister for Urban Development, Govt. of India, for release of the land. Again, on June 3, 1999 the aforesaid club preferred a fresh representation to the them Minister for Urban Development, Government of India, for release of the land from acquisition, change of the land use from rural use to recreational use and for regularisation and approval of the club. It is claimed that on 3rd June, 1999 a meeting was held in the office of Shri Ram Jethmalani, the then Minister of Urban Development where the President of the Shanti Sports Club and the Vice Chairman of DDA and other senior officials of the DDA were present, and a policy decision was taken for denotification of the land in question and for regularisation of the same in favor of Shanti Sports Club. The President of the Shanti Sports Club was allegedly asked to hold discussions with the officials of the DDA for hammering out the terms of regularisation by mutual negotiations. On 8th June, 1999 the Private Secretary to the then Minister for Urban Development sought a report from the Commissioner of Planning, DDA, in respect of the land in question in order to enable the Minister to take a decision in the matter. On the same day, viz., June 8, 1999 the petitioners are stated to have written a letter to the Minister for Urban Development suggesting terms for regularisation and denotification of the land. It is claimed by the petitioners that on June 8, 1999 itself the then Minister again took a decision to regularise the club and directed finalisation of the terms for the same. On 9th June, 1999, the petitioners allegedly submitted a fresh representation to the Vice Chairman, DDA for denotification and regularisation of the land on the terms specified therien. On 24th May, 2000 in C.W.4777/93, the counsel for the Government of India made a statement in court to the effect that a decision had been taken by the concerned Minister with regard to the representation of the petitioner seeking release of the land in question from acquisition. He further stated that the concerned Minister did not accede to the request of the petitioners to denotify the land in question. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents we directed the respondents to communicate the decision of the Government to the petitioners. Pursuant to the said direction, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Govt. of India, vide his letter dated June 9, 2000 communicated the decision of the Government to the petitioners. The said communication reads as follows:

1. The then Minister for Urban Development had taken a decision to denotify the land and regularise the same in favor of the petitioners.
2. That once a decision to denotify and regularise the land was taken by Shri Jethmalani, the then Minister for Urban Development, there was no power to review the same by his successor.

16. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. it seems to us that the same proceed on mere surmises and assumptions. the assumption of the petitioners that Sh. Ram Jethmalani had taken a decision to denotify the land is without any foundation. Similarly the assumption that he had decided to regularise the land in favor of the petitioner club also does not appear to be correct. It needs to be noted that while the assertions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that a meeting of the petitioners took place with the then Minister for Urban Development on June 3, 1999 and a note was recorded by the Vice Chairman, DDA on the same day are well founded, the further claim that he (the Minister for Urban Development) took a decision to denotify and regularise the land in favor of the petitioners is not justified. The note of the Vice Chairman, DDA dated June, 3, 1999 (page 272) does not reflect that a final decision was taken by the Minister. The note of the Vice Chairman, DDA reads as follows:-

In accordance with the settled policy, no demolition can or will be ordered. At the last meeting, I indicated that suitable terms of regularisation be settled by negotiations. I would leave this now to my successor."

Sd/-

Ram Jethmalani."

17. The aforesaid note and the note recorded by the Vice Chairman on June 3, 1999 at best reflect the musings of the Minister. he was still pondering over the possibility of a negotiated settlement and possible terms of regularisation. On June 7, 1999 he had directed the representation dated June 3, 1999 to be put up after ten days, i.e., on June 13, 1999. But the petitioners without waiting for ten days presented a fresh representation to Shri Jethmalani on June 8, 1999. It needs to be noted that on 8th June, 1999, Shri Ram jethmalani relinquished charge of the office of the Minister for Urban Development and assumed charge of the office of Minister for Law, Justice and Company Affairs. On the same day, Sh. Jag Mohan relinquished charge of the office of Minister for Communication and assumed charge of the office of the Minister for Urban Development. This being so how it can be attributed to the erstwhile Minister to have taken a decision to denotify the land from acquisition and to regularise the same in favor of the petitioners on the day he laid down his office as Minister for Urban Development. it is apparent from the note recorded by Shri Ram Jethmalani on the application of the petitioners dated June 8, 1999 that the matter was left to his successor. We fail to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the then Minister had taken a final decision to regularise and denotify the land in favor of the petitioners. Assuming for the sake of argument that on June 3, 1999 and June 8, 1999 a decision to denotify and regularise the land was taken by the then Minister for Urban Development, it seems to us that such a decision will be of no consequence and will have no existence in the eye of law. This is so because the terms for denotification and regularisation were not settled. Settlement, if any, was left for the future. In the event of the parties failing to reach a settlement there would be no occasion to withdraw from acquisition of the land and to regularise the same in favor of the petitioners. We also fail to appreciate as to how it can be argued that though the terms for regularisation were still to be settled, the decision to regularise the land in favor of the first petitioner was taken by Sh. Ram Jethmalani. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, is fallacious and is hereby rejected. Besides, the withdrawal from acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken is governed by section 48 of the Act. Undoubtedly, section 48 vests power in the Government to withdraw from acquisition except in the case provided for in section 36 thereof. But withdrawal form acquisition must necessarily be by a notification under sub-section (1) of section 48 of the Act published in the official gazette.

23. The second limb of the argument of the learned senior counsel for he petitioners that the impugned decision contained in the aforesaid letter dated June 9, 2000 is invalid as the Government did not have the power to review the decision dated, June 3, 1999 and June 8, 1999 of Sh. Ram Jethmalani to withdraw from acquisition and to regularise the land in favor of the first petitioner. This submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is misconceived. As already noted, Sh. Ram Jethmalani did not order denotification of the land and change of it use from rural use to recreational use, and without taking a decision in this regard no regularisation thereof in favor of the petitioners was/is either possible or permissible. Since no such decision was taken by Shri Jethmalani, the petitioners cannot complain that the decision of his successor conveyed to them through letter of the Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, dated June 9, 2000 declining to denotify the land was passed by reviewing the earlier decision. This position will prevail even if the aforesaid nothings recorded on June 3, 1999 and June 8, 1999 are construed as the decision of Shri Jethmalani to denotify the land and to regularise the same in favor of the petitioner club as the same has no existence in the eyes of law and will not come in the way of the Government passing a fresh order. Therefore, it is not necessary to determine the aforesaid question posed on behalf of the petitioners.