Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(5) In the meantime, on November 6, 1959, respondent No. 2 submitted a revised layout plan for an area of about 20,314 sq. yards after including therein other lands, comprised in Khasra numbers 371 and 372, belonging to her brothers and sisters claiming that all of them wanted to develop the area jointly. This revised layout plan was recommended to the Standing Committee of the Corporation for rejection as the proposal was nto in conformity with the Sector Plan. However, the Standing Committee referred back the case to the Commissioner for a further report in the light of discussions held in its meeting. Respondent No. 2 was accordingly asked to submit a revised layout plan providing more of open area by reducing the number of plots. Respondent No. 2 submitted a revised layout plan on the lines suggested on June 8, 1960. The case was discussed again by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on June 16, 1961 and was again referred back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner was of the opinion that there was a deficiency in the matter of open spaces and that the revised layout plan submitted by respondent No. 2 was nto in conformity with the Sector Plan, particularly the open spaces proposed which were less than provided in the Sector Plan. By the time this report was made the said land was notified under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on October 24, 1961 by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. The matter was ultimately placed before the Standing Committee on February 9, 1962 and the revised layout plan was rejected. It will be useful to tabulate the relevant and important dates :- 6-12-1959 .. Revised layout plan in respect of Khasra Nos. 371, 372, 373, 374 and 494/375 submitted by respondent No. 2. 17-2-1960 .. Standing Committee desired the addition of a few more plots. Respondent No. 2 wanted to add 7 additional plots. The Commissioner agreed to recommend the case if only 5 additional plots were provided in the revised layout plan. 19-12-1960 .. Further information supplied. 8-6-1960 .. Respondent No. 2 submitted revised layout plan incorporating the suggestion of the Commissioner. 16-6-1961 .. Standing Committee discussed the matter and referred it back to the Commissioner for a further report. 24-10-1961 .. Notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. 9-2-1962 .. Standing Committee rejected the revised layout plan submitted by respondent No. 2.

(6) It will, therefore, be seen that while the revised layout plan, incorporating the suggestion of the Commissioner, was submitted by respondent No. 2 on June 8, 1961, it was nto rejected by the Standing Committee until February 9, 1962.

(7) The contention of the respondents and of R. P. Kapur is that the order of rejection dated 9/2/1962, having been passed 60 days after the submission of the revised layout plan incorporating the suggestion of the Commissioner, it was invalid, inoperative and without jurisdiction and the respondents were free of the restrictions which have been imposed by sections 312 and 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation Act". As to the notice of acquisition issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the contention of the respondents is that the said lands in respect of which the revised layout plan and services plan had been submitted were exempted by the notification itself. Sharma, J. accepted both the contentions and observed :-- "CONSEQUENTLY,when the Standing Committee omitted to reject the layout plans within sixth days of the receipt of further information which was supplied to it on 19th December, 1960, these could have been considered as passed, In the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to utilise, sell or otherwise deal with the land in dispute or layout or make any new street. Their case stood covered by exception (c) in paragraph 2 of the Chief Commissioner's Notification (Annexure IV). Therefore, the proposed acquisition of 16,000 acres of land by the said Notification does nto cover the land in question. For the above reasons, the petition is accepted and it is directed that the respondents should nto interfere in any manner whatsoever with the rights of the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute and from utilising or from otherwise dealing with the said land or layout as contemplated in section 313(5) of the Act. ..........."

(20) It would appear from the dates given herein before that the respondents submitted the final revised layout plan incorporating the suggestions of the Commissioner on June 8, 1960, and it was nto until February 9, 1962, long after the expiry of sixty days, the time specified in the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 313, that the Standing Committee of the Corporation rejected the plan. According to the construction that we have placed upon the provisions of section 313, it follows that after the expiry of the aforesaid period of sixty days the Standing Committee had no jurisdiction to reject the plan as it did nto act within the time provided by the statute. The inevitable result of such inaction is that the restriction imposed by sub-section (5) upon the utilisation of the land disappears and the respondents are free to ' utilise it in accordance with the final revised layout plan submitted by them. There is, therefore, no merit in letters Patent Appeal No. 143-D of 1965 filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others.

(21) Coming now to Letters Patent Appeal No. 138-D of 1965 filed by the Chief Commissioner, as mentioned earlier a notification was issued on October 24, 1961, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with respect to a total area of 16,000 acres including the lands which were the subject-matter of the final revised layout plan submitted by the respondents. The material portion of this notification is as under :- "IT is hereby notified that the land, measuring about acres and marked with Blocks Nos. 1 to 24 and colouredblue, in the enclosed map (Annexure I) and the description of which has been given in Annexure Ii, excepting the following lands in Blocks referred herein : (a) ........................................ (b)........................................ (c) The land in respect of which layout plans and services plans have been sanctioned by the competent authorities before 24th October, 1961. (d) ........................................ is likely to be required for the above purpose."