SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. KANIA C.J.I., N.M. KASLIWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.
The Ramjas Foundation and others, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2213 of 1978
Decided on 13-11-1992.
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 – Acquisition Proceedings – Liberty to Agitate – Present appeal relates to land situated in chowkri Sadhurakhurd – Ramjas Foundation filed objections under Section 5A of the Act for the entire land situated in Mubarikabad as well as Sadhurakhurd. Governor of Delhi subsequently issued Governor also issued notices for Sadhurakhurd land regards the land in Mubarikabad Notification was issued on Foundation filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court challenging action of Government in acquiring their lands situated in Mubarikabad – Writ petition who heard petition was of view that matter ought to be tried in a suit instead of writ-proceedings his order permitted Ramjas Foundation to withdraw petition with liberty to agitate matter in a suit and as such writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn – Held, Appellants had approached with their writ petitions were issued to them writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the grounds of laches and delay. Mr. Tarkunde, learned senior counsel made strenuous effort to distinguish aforesaid case on ground that in case Court was influenced with fact that petitioners had sat on fence and allowed Government to complete acquisition proceedings – Much emphasis has been laid on the word to complete acquisition proceedings – Petitioners in those cases had filed writ petitions in after issuance of notices use of word complete was not of much significance and main reasoning of case was that grounds to attack the notification were available at time of publication of such notifications of case before us appellants were also sitting on fence and did not take any steps of challenging notifications though the grounds now sought to be urged were available to appellants as soon as such notifications were issued viewing matter from any angle we are clearly of the view that writ petition was also liable to be dismissed on ground of laches and delay on part of appellants apart from other grounds already dealt by aforesaid view taken by us, it is not necessary at all to go on other questions raised in case – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
KASLIWAL, J.:—This appeal by the Ramjas Foundation, a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and five others who are the Secretary and trustees of the Ramjas Foundation is directed against the order of the Delhi High Court dated January 31, 1978 dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No. 106 of 1978 in limine.
2. On November 13, 1959, the Chief Commissioner, Delhi issued a Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Land measuring 34070 acres was notified as land likely to be acquired by the Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, the planned development of Delhi. The following land was excluded from the scope of the notification:
(a) Government land and evacuees land;
(b) the land already notified, either under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for any Government Scheme;
(c) the land already notified either under S. 4 or under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, for House Building Co-operative Societies mentioned in Annexure-III;
(d) the land under graveyards, tombs, shrines and the land attached to religious institutions and Wakf property.
3. The aforesaid land measuring 34070 acres included land measuring about 872 bighas, 9 biswas situated in chowkri Mubarikabad and measuring about 730 bighas situated in chowkri Sadhurakhurd, belonging to the Ramjas Foundation. The present appeal relates to the land situated in chowkri Sadhurakhurd. The Ramjas Foundation on December 11, 1959 filed objections under Section 5A of the Act for the entire land situated in Mubarikabad as well as Sadhurakhurd. The Lt. Governor of Delhi subsequently issued Notifications under S. 6 of the Act on 15-4-1968, 27-4-1968, 15-5-1968, 19-8-1968, 14-1-1969 and 18-1-1969. The Lt. Governor also issued notices under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act on December 27, 1972 for Sadhurakhurd land. As regards the land in Mubarikabad Notification under S. 6 of the Act was issued on February 28, 1968. Ramjas Foundation filed a writ petition in May, 1968 in the Delhi High Court challenging the action of the Government in acquiring their lands situated in Mubarikabad. In the said writ petition Sachar, J. (as he then was) who heard the petition was of the view that the matter ought to be tried in a suit instead of writ-proceedings. He, therefore, by his order dated August 10, 1971 permitted the Ramjas Foundation to withdraw the petition with liberty to agitate the matter in a suit and as such the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Ramjas Foundation then filed a suit in the Delhi High Court on November 8, 1971 for quashing the Notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act in respect of the land situated in Mubarikabad. The suit was dismissed by Awadh Behari Rohtagi, J. of the Delhi High Court by order dated 21-3-1977 reported in AIR 1977 Delhi 261. Learned counsel for the appellants brought to our notice that Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court is pending against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge.
4. So far as the land situated in Sadhurakhurd with which we are concerned in the present appeal a Writ Petition No. 213 of 1973 was filed in the High Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 30th March, 1977. Thereafter another Writ Petition No. 106 of 1978 was filed challenging the notifications issued under Ss. 4, 6, 9 and 10 of the Act and the same was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated January 31, 1978 in limine as already mentioned above.
5. We have heard Mr. Tarkunde, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Tulsi, Learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants had submitted their objections under S. 5A of the Act on 11-12-1959 but the same were rejected without affording any opportunity of personal hearing. It was submitted that it was mandatory on the part of the respondents to have given an
referred to : Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.