The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the acquiring authority to apply mind in issuing notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, and the importance of upholding the rights guaranteed to landowners under the Act.

ORDER

1. BEING AGGRIEVED AND DISSATISFIED BY THE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS DATED 24-7-2001, PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4361 OF 1998 ETC. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS HAVE FILED THESE APPEALS. BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS, THE HIGH COURT QUASHED THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4 READ WITH SECTION 17(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE ACT") ON THE GROUND OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ACQUIRING AUTHORITY IN ISSUING THE SAID NOTIFICATION.

2. LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL MR MUKUL ROHATGI SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4 CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE HIGH COURT HAS NOT A ASSIGNED ANY REASON FOR SETTING ASIDE THE SAME. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ONE

OF THE GROWTH CENTRES WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN VILLAGE RAJOKARI. HOWEVER, DUE TO PAUCITY OF GOVERNMENT/GAON SABHA LAND, IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO HAVE ANY GROWTH CENTRE IN RAJOKARI AND IT WAS DECIDED TO SET UP A GROWTH POINT AT SAMALKHA. THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED A NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 READ WITH SECTION 17(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ACQUIRING THE LAND OF VILLAGE B SAMALKHA. THE GOVERNMENT DISPENSED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5-A OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACQUISITION OF LAND IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH POINT IN THE AREA, WHICH IS A MATTER OF URGENT NEED. HE, THEREFORE, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 17(1) AND 17(4) OF THE ACT AND CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS URGENCY OF IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT.

3. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL MR P.N. LEKHI, MR V.A. MOHTA

AND MR RAVINDER SETHI ELABORATELY POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS TOTAL NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITY IN ISSUING THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 AND SECTION 17 (1) OF THE ACT AND IN ANY CASE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF APPLYING THE URGENCY CLAUSE. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE SO-CALLED MINI-MASTER PLAN IS NOT BACKED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW AND THE MASTER PLAN FOR DELHI PREPARED UNDER THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A GROWTH CENTRE ON THE LAND WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION IS ISSUED MALA FIDELY.

4. FOR THE ALLEGATION OF MALA FIDES AGAINST THE THEN CHIEF MINISTER AND THE MLA, THE HIGH COURT DID NOT ISSUE NOTICES TO THEM BEFORE HEARING THE PETITIONS. AT THAT STAGE, THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT NOTICES BE ISSUED TO THEM SO THAT QUESTION OF PERSONAL MALA FIDES COULD BE DECIDED. IN OUR VIEW, IN THESE APPEALS THAT QUESTION CANNOT BE REOPENED.

5. FURTHER, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THIS CASE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A MATTER OF GRAVE URGENCY AND THERE IS TOTAL ABSENCE OF MATERIAL FOR A DECISION TO DISPENSE WITH SECTION 5-A. IF THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT ENSURE THAT INQUIRY BE EXPEDITIOUSLY HELD BY THE COLLECTOR UNDER SECTION 5-A, IT HAS TO BLAME ITSELF AND IT CANNOT THRUST THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES IN THIS BEHALF ON THE LANDOWNERS BY DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER SECTION 5-A. FURTHER, SETTING UP OF A GROWTH POINT IS A PART OF PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL AREAS BY CREATING NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE. SUCH WORKS KEEP GOING ON AS THE SOCIETY GROWS AND THESE ARE LONG-TERM MEASURES. IN FACT, THAT IS WHY THE SPAN HAS BEEN KEPT AS TWELVE YEARS IN THE INSTANT CASE.

6. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE HIGH COURT FOR QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 17(1) AND (4) CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION IN VIEW OF THE CORRESPONDENCE PRODUCED ON RECORD. THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN PROPERLY DEALT WITH BY THE HIGH COURT AND IT HAS BECOME FINAL.

7. HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED A AND HENCE THAT PART OF THE ORDER REQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE.

8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS FOR QUASHING THE NOTI