IMPORTANT POINT
Review Petition against decision dated 14.11.2000 is rejected on the ground that the said order was in the circumstances of the case, was correct.

Headnote:Review Petition against order of Apex Court dated 14.11.2000-Apex Court dismissing appeal of petitioner against Delhi High Court decision upholding quashing of notification of Lt. Governor dated 6.3.1987 under Section 4 r/w 17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Whether order of Apex Court dated 14.11.2000, in the circumstances of the case was correct? (Yes)-Result-Review petition is liable to be dismissed-Case law referred (Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952-Land Acquisition Act, 1894).
       Held : It appears that the petitioners have proceeded on the basis that the acquisition sought to be affected by the impugned notification under Section 4 had been invalidated in respect of other specified properties by the decision of this Court in Banwari Lal s case. The statement in the respondent s affidavit that several of the properties covered by the same notification have since been returned by the petitioners to the original owners has not been disputed by the petitioners. Furthermore, the High Court in the decision impugned before us has also noted:
       "It is also not disputed that under the impugned notifications neither an award has been made nor any compensation is determined and paid. The reason being that the impugned notifications were quashed and set aside in Banwari Lal s case (supra)."
       Indeed no compensation as envisaged under Section 17 (3A) of the Act has been offered to the respondent by the petitioners till now. In any event the order dated 14th November, 2000 was not legally erroneous. The notification under Section 4 was a composite one. The "opinion" of the Lt. Governor that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were applicable, as expressed in the last paragraph of the impugned notification, was relatable in general to the 14 properties specified in the notification. The impugned notification was quashed in Banwari Lal s case inter alia on the ground that the "opinion" of the Lt. Governor as expressed in the notification was insufficient for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. This ground was not peculiar to the premises in Banwarilal s case, but common to all fourteen properties. The urgency sought to be expressed in the impugned notification cannot be held to be sufficient for the purposes of section 17(1) in this case when it has already been held to be bad in Banwari Lal s case [See observations in Abhey Ram (Dead) by LRs vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 421 (Para 11); Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 296 (Paras 53-55)]. The expression of urgency being one cannot be partly good and partly bad like the curate s egg. It must follow that the acquisition in respect of the respondent s premises as mentioned in the notification which were sought to be acquired on the basis of such invalid expression of "urgency" cannot be sustained. We therefore dismiss the review application without any order as to costs. (Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16)

JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-The respondent claims to be the owner of premises known as Grand Hotel which is situated at 2, Under Hill Road, Delhi. On 3rd April, 1980, a portion of the premises had been requisitioned by the petitioners under the Requisition & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The 1952 Act lapsed on 10th March, 1987. On 6th March, 1987 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) which reads as follows:

" No.F.7(9)/86- L&B (1) Whereas it appears to the Lt. Governor Delhi that the lands/properties are likely to be required to be taken by the Government at the public expense for the following public purposes. It is hereby notified that the land in the locality described below is liked to be required for the above purpose.

This notification is made under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to all whom it may concern.

In exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid section the Lt. Governor is pleased to authorise the officers for the time being engaged in the undertaking with their servants and workmen to enter upon and survey any land in the locality and do all other acts required or permitted by that section.

The Lt. Governor, being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act are applicable to this land is further pleased under sub-section 4 of the said section, to direct that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply".

2. The notification goes on to list 14 properties under the heading Specification to which the notification would apply. Apart from the description, the purpose of acquisition in respect of each of the properties specified has been set out in a separate column. Against item 7 of the Specification, 11.740 sq. meters of 2, Under Hill Road Delhi (referred to hereafter as the premises ) has been mentioned, and the purpose of acquisition stated is "Housing the Government Office". A notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued in respect of all fourteen properties on 10th March, 1987.

3. The respondent challenged the notification issued under Section 4 as well as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court at Delhi. The owner of one of the premises similarly specified in the impugned notifications, namely Banwari Lal and Sons Pvt. Ltd., (Banwari Lal) also filed a writ application in the High Court impugning the notifications inter alia on the ground that there was no urgency which justified the Governor to dispense with the right of the owner to object under Section 5A of the Act. Banwari Lal s writ application was allowed on 4th February, 1991 and the impugned notifications were quashed. The High Court upheld the several contentions of Banwari Lal including the issue of urgency1. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the acquisition proceedings on three bases:

(i) "..... There is not a whisper of what was the urgency to take immediate possession and to deny the right of raising objection to the owner under Section 5-A of the Act. The Notification under Sections 4 and 17(1) in the present case, therefore, stand vitiated for non-compliance of the requirement of mentioning urgency in the Notification itself.

(ii) "What is more objectionable is the fact that the building was already in occupation of the officers of the Delhi Administration and the Administration knew that the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act was to lapse on 10.3.1987. Thus they had sufficient time to make alternate arrangement for the residence of the officers and there was no urgency whatsoever for invoking the provisions of the laxity or lethargy of the Administration to take appropriate steps in time for making available alternate accommodation for its officers"

(iii) "The Notification under Section 17(1) is also bad in law for non compliance of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 853

IMPORTANT POINTReview Petition against decision dated 14.11.2000 is rejected on the ground that the said order was in the circumstances of the case, was correct.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
Review Petition against decision dated 14.11.2000 is rejected on the ground that the said order was in the circumstances of the case, was correct.