SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority - Appellants
Versus
Munni Lal & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2362 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27383 of 2015)
With
Delhi Development Authority - Appellants
Versus
Swarup Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.2363 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27389 of 2015)
Decided On : 21-02-2018
(2004) 8 SCC 14; (2004) 8 SCC 14; (2010) 11 SCC 242; (2012) 11 SCC 370; (1977) 1 SCC 133; JT 2011 (3) SC 102; (1980) 2 SCC 471; (2010) 3 SCC 621; (2012) 9 SCC 503 – Distinguished
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48(i) – Denotification Committee actively considering representation of land owners – Rejecting the same – No infirmity. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Notification under section 4 was issued on 5.4.1995 for the acquisition of land for construction of Freight Complex (Narela) under Planned Development of Delhi. Declaration under section 6 was issued on 22.12.1995 for the purpose of acquisition of land and the award was passed on 19.12.1997.
The petitioners-therein have filed writ petitions in the year 1996, however, they have withdrawn the same in 2012 with prayer seeking liberty to file fresh writ petition for quashing of the order rejecting the prayer with respect to de-requisition of land passed on 19.04.2012. Thereafter, fresh writ petitions have been filed in the year 2012. During the pendency of the writ applications, the Act of 2013 came into force. The High Court has quashed the acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Mishra, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the Delhi Development Authority (for short, "the DDA") aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi declaring that as the physical possession has not been taken, the acquisition has lapsed under the provision of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as "the Act of 2013"). The facts, in short, indicate that notification under section 4 was issued on 5.4.1995 for the acquisition of land for construction of Freight Complex (Narela) under Planned Development of Delhi. The emergency provision of sub Section 1 of section 17 read with section 17(4) was invoked. It was ordered that the provision of section 5 A shall not apply. Declaration under section 6 was issued on 22.12.1995 for the purpose of acquisition of land and the award was passed on 19.12.1997.
3. The petitioners-therein have filed writ petitions in the year 1996, however, they have withdrawn the same in 2012 with prayer seeking liberty to file fresh writ petition for quashing of the order rejecting the prayer with respect to de-requisition of land passed on 19.04.2012. Thereafter, fresh writ petitions have been filed in the year 2012. During the pendency of the writ applications, the Act of 2013 came into force. The High Court has quashed the acquisition; hence, the appeals have been preferred.
4. With respect to whether acquisition had lapsed by virtue of the provisions contained in section 24 of the Act of 2013, the matter was referred to a larger bench and the reference has been answered by three Judge Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.20982 of 2017) on 8.2.2018. In view of the answers to the questions, the impugned orders quashing the acquisition on the ground of Section 24 are liable to be quashed and are set aside.
5. On merits of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the land owners are two-fold that when the declaration under section 6 was issued after eight months inquiry under section 5 A ought to have been held. Thus, invocation of the urgency provision could not be said to be proper. There was non-application of mind in respect of invoking the provision under section 17 of Act of 1894. The second submission is that certain other area has been de-notified on 31.5.1999 which was covered under the same notification and the farm/ house in question is the only accommodation available with the respondents-herein which should have been de-notified. The rejection of the prayer for de-notification vide orders dated 19.4.2012 was illegal.
6. It was submitted on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for DDA that the acquisition was for Planned Development of Delhi for Freight Complex at Narela, which could not have been delayed as such invocation of urgency provision was proper. The Planned Development of Delhi could not have been delayed. Thus, notification of urgency provision under section 17(1) and to dispense with the inquiry under section 5 A was proper. While declining the derequisition of the land reasoned orders have been passed on 19.4.2012. No case for interference is made out on the grounds urged on behalf of the land owners.
7. Coming to the invocation of the urgency provision, in our opinion, when the public purpose of freight complex at Narela under Planned Development of Delhi was involved, obviously, there was urgency and the project was such that it could not have brooked any delay. Thus, invocation of section 17 was proper. Merely by the fact that declaration under section 6 was issued in December, it could not be said that invocation of the urgency provision under section 17(1) and 17(4) was improper. The satisfaction of Lt. Governor as mentioned in the notification in the facts of the case was not appropriate considering the nature
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.