SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 1313

2001(7) Supreme 189
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
V.N. Khare and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
L.K. Malik & Ors. etc. —Appellants
versus
D.D.A. & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6532 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1480/99)
With
Civil Appeal No. 6533 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4096/99)
With
Civil Appeal No. 6534 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4097/99)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6535-36 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5173-5174/99)
Decided on 20-9-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K.K. Venugopal and P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocates, Krishanan Venugopal, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ms. Amita Gupta, Ram N. Sharma, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Kiran Suri, Ms. Pankaj Bala Verma, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Advocates.

Important Point
The area acquired and later released for Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Park colony was 20 acres as approved by Delhi Development Provincial Authority.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 6, 16, 18, 48—Dispute on acquired area and release area—According to lay out plan for the SPMP colony area acquired was 32.58 acres but as per notification issued u/s 48 its release was for only 20 acres—Whether correct? (No) (It was 20 acres)—Result—Appeals dismissed.

       Held : By letter dated 14th March, 1957, the DDPA communicated the entire resolution dated 9.3.1957 of the DDPA to the coloniser and in the said letter it was clearly indicated that the colony covers an area of 20 acres of land and the modifications to be carried out by the coloniser. By letter dated 2nd April, 1957, the coloniser thanked the DDPA for the approval and agreed to carry out the modifications as suggested. There was no protest in this letter regarding area of land approved for the colony and also regarding the items indicated in the said letter. Subsequently, on 6th April, 1957, the coloniser informed the DDPA that the correct area of the land of the colony was 32.58 acres and not 20 acres as stated in the letter of DDPA dated 14.3.1957. By this letter dated 6.4.1957, the coloniser informed the DDA that after re-verification of the sanctioned plan and ownership document, it was found that the correct area of the land of the colony was 32.58 acres and not 20 acres as stated in the letter of DDA dated 14.3.1957. From the letter we find that according to the coloniser, DDA gave a hearing and informed him that the proforma asking for detailed classification of the approved layout plan would be supplied to him and as it was not supplied, this letter was sent by the coloniser as a reminder. Thus, from this letter it is abundantly clear that the area of the sanction plan was 20 acres and the coloniser was aware of this fact. He asked for modification of resolution, which was not done and thereafter, no follow up action was taken up by the coloniser for modification of the resolution. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the area of the SPMP colony approved by the resolution of the DDPA was 20 acres and not 32.58 acres as claimed by the coloniser. From the statement of the Minister the policy decision of the government was clear and unambiguous and, therefore, the government decided to retease only 20 acres of land as approved by the DDPA. (Paras 12 & 13)

       Held also : [I]n our opinion as in the statement of the Minister more area of land was indicated for the colony, the coloniser took advantage of the statement and started negotiating with the Government of India, Delhi Administration, DDPA, etc. for release of balance area of the land for the colony as indicated in his letter dated 18th December, 1958. (Para 15)

       Held further : From the correspondence we find that as there were negotiations between the coloniser and the authorities, the DDA agreed to release 23 shops with condition stated above as a part of the said negotiations and not on the ground that these shops were within the approved plan and hence the coloniser cannot claim release of this area on the basis of the policy decision of the government as per the statement of the Minister. (Para 16)

       As regards report dated 23.5.1970 of Shri Bose Malick, Vice Chairman DDA

       Held : On perusal of the report we find that the Vice-Chairman did not consider the items mentioned in the resolution of the DDPA dated 9.3.1957. This report, therefore, does not improve the case of the appellants. (Para 17)

       Held thereafter : As stated above the coloniser knew that the approved plan was only for 20 acres of land and he subsequently took up the matter for modification of the resolution, which was not done. After the statement of the Minister indicating a larger area for the colony, the coloniser made all attempts to include various items, e.g. Petrol Pump, Cinema Site, Shopping Complex, etc. This in our opinion is an after thought. (Para 19)

       Held finally : Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants has contended that there was no rational consideration for release of 23 shop sites and its subsequent withdrawal. We are unable to accept the contention inasmuch as this offer was by way of negotiations and the offer was withdrawn, as the condition attested was not accepted by the coloniser. Mr. Venugopal has urged that there is discrimination inasmuch as area indicated in the statement of Minister for other colonies were released but not in respect of the SPMP colony. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned senior counsel as area of each of colony has been considered on the basis of resolution passed by the concerned authorities. We have indicated that as per the resolution area of the approved plan was 20 acres of land, which was released. For the reasons stated above we hold that the appeals have no merit and accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. (Paras 20, 21 & 22)

       

Judgment

Phukan, J.—Leave granted.

2. By this common judgment, we dispose of all the appeals, as relief sought for are similar and common.

3. The facts may be briefly stated. One of the appellants -Shri N.N. Verma (hereinafter referred to as the coloniser) acquired certain lands by purchase in Delhi and submitted a lay out plan for establishment of a colony known as the Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Park (shortly stated as ‘SPMP’). The lay out plan was sanctioned by the authority by Resolution dated 9.3.1957 and in the Resolution it was mentioned that the area of the lay out plan was 20 acres. On 13.11.1959, on the instruction of the Central Government, the Delhi Administration issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for acquisition of over 34,000 acres of land within Delhi including the above land of the SPMP colony. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued. The Central Government, however, took a policy decision that land of the colonies whose lay out plan was sanctioned would be released from acquisition. A statement was made by the Minister of Health, Works and Housing on March 10, 1960 on the floor of the House of Parliament. In the said statement, the Minister announced that Government had decided that as a measure to meet the acute housing shortage in Delhi, the colonies whose layout/building plans had been approved by the Delhi Municipal Corporation or the Delhi Development authority or any other competent authority would be released from the purview of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the said statement names of 21 colonies including that of the SPMP colony were spelt out indicating the area. In respect of the SPMP colony the area was shown as 1,54,500 sq. yards. On 1.7.1960, the Delhi Administration issued a notification under Section 48 of the Act releasing the land of 21 colonies including the SPMP colony mentioned in the said statement of the Minister in the Parliament and the area of land of the SPMP colony was shown as 20 acres. According to the respondents, the Delhi Development Authority (for short ‘the DDA’) took possession of the remaining area of the land under Section 16 of the Act, which was disputed by the appellants. The coloniser also made an application under Section 18 of the Act, which was also disposed of. There is a dispute regarding payment of compensation to the coloniser

4. According to the appellants, the area of the lay out plan for the SPMP colony was 32.58 acres whereas the area released by the notification issued under Section 48 of the Act was only 20 acres of land. The matter was taken up with the Government of India, the Delhi Administration and the DDA but the balance area of land as claimed by the coloniser was not released on the ground that in terms of the statement of the Minister in the Parliament only 20 acres of land of the layout plan of the colony was approved, which was released to the coloniser of the SPMP colony and, therefore, the policy statement of the Minister was duly complied with.

5. Ultimately, the appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge but dismissed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment. That is how the parties are before this court. It may be stated that before the High Court as well as this court, only the DDA contested the writ petitions and the present appeals.

6. The learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petitions holding that the area of the land as per the layout plan was 28.24 acres and, therefore, remaining area of the land measuring 8.4 acres was directed to be released, though the plea of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the area to be released as per the approved plan was 32.58 acres. The Division Bench inter alia held that statement of the Minister made before the floor of the House was only a policy decision of the Government and having not been duly authenticated and communicated could n













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top