Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. A perusal of the Order dated 23.04.1990 shows that the only ground considered therein is that the notice was more than 10 years old since its publication and, thus, the land should be released from acquisition in view of the provisions of Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, „the DD Act‟ ). The effect of the said provision had already been the subject matter of decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 721/1974 titled „Scindia Potteries & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.‟ decided on 05.12.1977 and Sahab Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 38 (1989) DLT 127 where it was held that when a notice under Section 55 of the DD Act is issued and the administration does not acquire the land for a period of six months, the land stands free from the notice of acquisition. The judgment in the case of the petitioner society was never challenged and became final.

9. We are unable to accept the plea advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner as it is obvious to us that all that weighed with the Court while passing the Order dated 23.04.1990 was the interpretation of Section 55 of the DD Act as enunciated in Scindia Potteries & Ors.‟s case (supra) which judgment stood subsequently overruled. This did not prevent the competent authorities from issuing a fresh notification for acquisition of the land. The petitioner would obviously get the benefit of the judgment dated 23.04.1990 since the earlier notification dated 23.01.1965 had been quashed and the fresh impugned notification was issued on 13.09.1993 and, thus, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation at 1993 rates.