Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 431
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINGH & ALTAMAS KABIR
Ravi Khullar and anotherPETITIONER
versus
Union of India and othersRESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 1704 of 2007
Decided on 30/03/2007
(Arising out of SLP) No.6093 of 2003)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1707 2007
(Arising out of SLP) No.6095 of 2003)
M/s. Palam PotteriesAppellant
Versus
Union of India and othersRespondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1705 2007
(Arising out of SLP) No.6384 of 2003)
Hari Chand and anotherAppellants
Versus
Union of India and othersRespondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1706 2007
(Arising out of SLP) No.8574 of 2003)
Punjab PotteriesAppellant
Versus
Union of India and othersRespondents
Land acquired for one public purpose can be utilized for another public purpose without invalidating the acquisition, provided there is no mala fides. Additionally, no inherent right to an alternative site exists unless specifically provided by a government scheme.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4 and 6 - Public Purpose - Change of user - Land acquired for a public purpose may be utilized for another public purpose without invalidating the acquisition, provided the original acquisition was not mala fide. As long as the land continues to serve a public purpose, a change in the specific nomenclature or the agency executing the project does not render the acquisition void. (Paras 25-29)
(B) Land Acquisition Act - Chapter VII - Acquisition for a Company - If a notification is issued for a general public purpose and a statutory authority is created subsequently to manage the project, the procedure laid down for acquisition for a "Company" is not attracted. (Paras 17-19)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Challenges to acquisition proceedings initiated after an inordinate delay, particularly after the declaration of the award, are generally not maintainable. (Paras 34-35)
(D) Land Acquisition Act - Allotment of alternative site - There is no inherent right to be provided with an alternative site in lieu of acquired land. Such allotment depends on whether a specific scheme has been promulgated by the State and whether the affected party is eligible under such scheme. (Paras 38-40)
Facts of the case:
Notifications were issued for the acquisition of land for the public purpose of planned development of a city and expansion of an airport. The land was subsequently managed by a statutory authority created after the initial notifications. The appellants challenged the acquisition on grounds of change of user, non-compliance with procedures related to corporate acquisitions, and sought the allotment of alternative sites. Some challenges were filed after significant delays and after the announcement of the awards.
Findings of Court:
The court held that "planned development" is a broad term encompassing airport expansion. The change of user from one public purpose to another does not invalidate the acquisition. Since the managing authority was created after the notification, the procedures for "Companies" were not applicable. The petitions were barred by delay and laches. Furthermore, the appellants were not entitled to alternative industrial sites as no such scheme existed for industries.
Issues: Whether land acquired for the public purpose of planned development can be used for another public purpose; whether procedural requirements for acquisition for a company apply to a statutory body created post-notification; and whether owners of acquired industrial lands have a right to alternative sites.
Ratio Decidendi: A valid compulsory acquisition is not voided if the land is later diverted to another public purpose. The purpose must remain "public," and the absence of mala fides sustains the acquisition. Procedural requirements for companies only apply if the acquisition is for a "Company" at the time of notification.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land acquisition
-
acquisition for public purpose
- planned development
- change of public purpose
-
validity of notification
- challenge to section 4 notification
- delay and laches
-
acquisition for company
- chapter vii compliance
-
acquisition for public purpose
-
practice and procedure
-
res judicata
- constructive res judicata
-
res judicata
-
rehabilitation and resettlement
-
alternative site
- industrial unit
- residential plot
-
alternative site
JUDGMENT
B.P. SINGH, J.
Special leave granted.
In the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6093 of 2003; 6095 of 2003 and 6384 of 2003 the appellants have impugned the common judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated February 13, 2003 disposing of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2672 of 1996 ; 1851 of 1986 and 2003 of 1986.
In the appeal arising out SLP ) No. 8574 of 2003, M/s. Punjab Potteries has assailed the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No.2168 of 2003 dated 26th March, 2003. The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein.
A few broad facts may be noticed at the threshold to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the parties in these appeals.
A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on January 23, 1965 for acquisition of lands measuring 6241 bighas 12 biswas in village Mahipalpur which was required for a public purpose, namely - Planned Development of Delhi. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act relating to 4759 bighas 1 biswa was made on December 12, 1966 and another
declaration relating to 1459 bighas 18 biswas was made on December 26, 1968. Another Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on December 3, 1971 for acquisition of land in Village Nangal Dewat for a public purpose, namely - Development of Palam Airport. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made with respect to the said lands on July 16, 1972.
The case of the appellants is that the matter remained pending for a considerable period and it appears from various documents which have been brought on record that the lands acquired were really for the benefit of the International Airport Authority of India (IAAI).
Reliance is placed on a Resolution dated September 10, 1981 of the Delhi Development Authority regarding change of land user from "Green Belt and Agriculture Cultivable Land" to "Circulation Airport". The Resolution recites that the Delhi Development Authority had approved the change of land user so that the land could be utilized for the purpose of development of the Palam Airport. This was subject to the condition that the IAAI prepared a detailed plan which should include the proposal for rehabilitation/resettlement of the villagers to be affected by the proposed expansion of the Airport, and the plan be discussed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking. It also appears from the record that the notice issued under Section 9(1) of the Act on June 22, 1983 was challenged in several writ petitions filed before the High Court in which an interim order was passed directing maintenance of status quo with regard to possession of the lands but permitted the acquisition proceeding to continue. Reliance has been placed on the correspondence exchanged between the various statutory authorities to indicate that it was really for the purpose of IAAI that the lands were being utilised. The letter of the Land Acquisition Officer dated July 1, 1986 indicates that IAAI had supplied details of khasra numbers to be acquired for the expansion of the Delhi Airport which had been discussed. A statement enclosed with the aforesaid communication showed that the lands to be acquired were in villages Mahipalpur, Nangal Dewat and Nangal Dewat Village abadi measuring 69 bighas 11 biswas, which included some of the khasra numbers belonging to some of the appellants herein. A communication from the Secretary, Department of Civil Aviation, addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi dated September 15, 1986 emphasised the need to acquire immediately the industrial structures in the Mahipalpur and Nangal Dewat area in the overall interest of security and development of Delhi Airport. The IAAI was said to be willing to accept the suggestion for provision of land for land, provided alternative land was acquired by the Delhi Administration/Delh
