IMPORTANT POINT
When large tracks of land was sought to be acquired for planned development of Delhi, for purpose of constructing huge residential colonies and commercial areas, simply because there is a delay in completing acquisition proceedings which in the facts and circumstances of the case was bound to occur, the notifications issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be rendered ineffective.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 6-Notifications u/s 4 issued between 1959 and 1965 for acquisition of several thousand acres of land for planned development of Delhi-Declarations made u/s 6 between years 1966 and 1969-Making of awards deferred-Petitions for quashing acquisition proceedings-Ground of delay in completing acquisition proceedings - Whether acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed on ground of delay?-(No)-Having regard to larger public interest, delay was bound to occur-Order directing payment of an additional amount of compensation to be calculated at the rate of 12 p.a. after expiry of two years from 23-8-1974, date of judgment in Aflatoon s case till date of making of award to be calculated with reference to market value of lands on date of notification-Same principle to be applied in cases in which possession not taken-Ram Chand s Case, 1994(1) SCC 44 : Relied on.
       Held : The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as they stand today have to be interpreted and applied in accordance with existing position of law and in its true sense of perspective in respect of which this Court has made authoritative pronouncements on the points raised and contended. (Para 6)
       Further held : In these facts and circumstances simply because there is a delay which in the facts and circumstances of the present case was bound to occur, it cannot justifiably contended that the notifications issued were rendered ineffective. As pointed out by the High Court and in our opinion rightly so that large tracks of land was sought to be acquired for purpose of constructing huge residential colonies and commercial areas and, therefore, the delay was bound to occur in completing the acquisition proceedings. However, the Legislature appears to have taken notice of such delays and it was for these reasons that it came to the rescue of land owners by amending the Land Acquisition Act by introducing Section 11-A in the Act providing the completion of the acquisition proceedings within the time frame stipulated therein in order to save the land owners from undue loss with regard to the price of land sought to be acquired compulsorily. (Para 14)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 & 6-Notification u/s 6-More than one declaration u/s 6 made in pursuance of same notification-Whether acquisition proceedings were liable to be quashed on this ground?-(No)-Land Acquisition (Amendment Validation) Act No. 13 of 1967-Ss. 2, 3, 4(1), 5-A & 6.
       Held : Section 4 of the Amendment Act, 1967 purported to validate all acquisitions of land made or purported to have been made under the Principal Act before the commencement of the ordinance dated January 20,1967, notwithstanding that more than one declaration under Section 6 had been made in pursuance of the same notification under Section 4(1) and notwithstanding the judgment decree or order of any Court to the contrary. The validity of the aforesaid Amending Act has been upheld by this Court in the case of Uday Ram Sharma v. Union of India, 1968(3) SCR 41 : AIR 1968 SC 1138 which has been further reaffirmed by this Court in the case of Aflatoon. (Para 7)
       (iii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1) & 23(1)-Land Acquisition-Land within ceiling limit may be acquired but on payment of full market value-Provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 provide payment of compensation of such land, building or structure prevailing on date of publication of notification u/s 4(1)-Land acquired for planned development of Delhi-Land belonging to small agriculturist within ceiling limit can be acquired. (Para 9 & 10)
       (iv) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4-Delhi Development Act, 1957-Sections 15(1) & 55-Land sought to be acquired for planned development of Delhi-Notification challenged on ground of violation of Section 55(1) of the Delhi Act-No zonal development plans prepared with regard to said land-No provision in Delhi Act containing any inihibition for acquisition of land for public purposes of planned development of Delhi under Land Acquisition Act. (Para 13)
       (v) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 48(1)-Power of Government to withdraw any land from acquisition-Such power can be exercised only before taking possession of land sought to be acquired-Order for release of certain land from acquisition-Not to be given effect to in absence of a notification denotifying acquisition of land. (Para 18)
       (vi) LAND ACQUISITIONS-Public purpose of planned development of Delhi-Acquisition of large extent of land measuring thousands of acres-It would not be proper to leave out some small portions here and there over which some structures are allegedly constructed-There being no material to show that structures were constructed before issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Faizan Uddin, J.-Leave granted.

The appellants in the appeals enumerated herein above had challenged the acquisition proceedings in respect of their respective lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for purposes of planned development of Delhi by filing various writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi. The said writ petitions were dismissed by a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court by judgment dated December 14, 1995 against which these appeals have been preferred by special leave. Various notifications were issued from time to time under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi. The said notification covered the land belonging to the transfer petitioners, appellants and some other persons. The transfer petitioners like others had also filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi being writ petitions No. 2179, 2178, 2140, 2139, 2197, 2083, 2138, 2144, 2199/1983 and civil writ petitions No. 810-812/1984 challenging the acquisition of their respective lands on various grounds. These writ petitions were pending in the High Court. However, during the course of hearing of writ petition (C) No. 4677/1985 pending before this Court it was felt necessary to transfer all the aforesaid writ petitions from Delhi High Court to this Court. Consequently on the basis of Interlocutory Applications No. 20 and 21 of 1995 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985 this court by order dated December 14, 1994 directed that all the aforementioned writ petitions be transferred to this court. This is how those writ petitions stand transferred to this court which have been registered as transfer cases Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 of 1995. As said earlier besides the aforementioned transfer cases large number of writ petitions filed by various persons were already pending before the High Court of Delhi challenging the acquisition of their respective lands for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi which were dismissed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi by the impugned common judgment dated December 14, 1995 against which the appeals referred to above have been filed by special leave. Since the common question of law and facts arise in all these transfer cases and appeals and, therefore, they were clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts in brief leading to the transfer cases and the appeals may be narrated thus :-

Various notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were issued from time to time between 1959 and 1965 for the acquisition of several thousand acres of land for the common public project, namely, planned development of Delhi. Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were also made between the years 1966 and 1969, while the making of the awards was referred till the year 1979-80. The master plan of Delhi was brought into force in September 1962 giving the details of the facts and circumstances under which it became imperative to have a development plan of the city of Delhi. It is common knowledge that after the partition of the country there was an enormous and huge migration of population into India, mainly at Delhi which resulted into a phenomenal growth of population of the settlers in Delhi besides considerable growth of industrial and commercial activities, which gave rise to various residential and occupational problems as a result of which various sub-standard structures, complexes and colonies came into being without proper layouts and other essentials of life. No land was available at reasonable price and within the reach of common man. It was in these circumstances and with a view to give a proper shape to the city of Delhi, the capital of India, the Central Government had set up a Delhi Development Authority in 1955 and later in December 1955 a Town Planning Organisation was set up under the administrative control

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1818

Cases Referred (12)