Back
High Court Of Delhi
BALLABH MARBLES - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W.P. 4933 of 1999
Decided On : 12/17/2004
Land Acquisition - Challenge to Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court found that there was no proper approval of the Lt. Governor under Section 17 (4) of the Act and, therefore, Notification invoking provision of Section 17 (4) was not having proper legal sanctity behind it.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners purchased plots of land in rajouri Garden Colony and objected to the acquisition of a larger area than required for the construction of a flyover. They challenged the legality and validity of the Notifications dated 5th April and 26th April, 1999.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no proper approval of the Lt. Governor under Section 17 (4) of the Act and, therefore, Notification invoking provision of Section 17 (4) was not having proper legal sanctity behind it.
Issues: Challenge to the legality and validity of the Notifications dated 5th April and 26th April, 1999 under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 were liable to be quashed as there was no proper approval of the Lt. Governor under Section 17 (4) of the Act.
Final Decision: The impugned Notification under section 4 dated 5th April, 1999 and Declaration under Section 6 dated 26th April, 1999 are liable to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. However, it would always be open to the authorities to take fresh steps for acquisition of the land in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THE issue involved in both the writ petitions is common. Challenge in these two writ petitions is to the same Notification dated 5th april, 1999 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The grounds for challenge are also the same. It is for this reason that both the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts from W. P. (C) No. 4933/1999 are taken note of.
( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they purchased plots of land in rajouri Garden Colony from DLF Housing Construction somewhere between 1955-58. DLF had purchased this land in village Basai Darapur, Delhi and rajouri Garden Colony was carved out by the said company. Layout plan of the colony was sanctioned and approved by the then Delhi Development provisional Authority in the year 1954-55.
( 3 ) IN the year 1957, the Delhi Development Act came to be enacted. Under this Act, the Delhi Development Authority was constituted with the object to secure and make development of Delhi in accordance with the Master Plan of delhi. The First Master Plan of Delhi-1961 was enforced with effect from 1st september, 1962. Land use of the property in question was declared as commercial-cum-residential by the Town Planner, Municipal Corporation of delhi some time in March, 1985. It is for this reason that in this area the occupants of the various plots are not only residing on the houses constructed thereon, but are even carrying on their business activity. The trading in marbles is most common.
( 4 ) SOME time in the year 1984-85, a decision was taken by the then Delhi administration to construct a flyover at Raja Garden intersection and the work of construction of flyover was entrusted to Delhi Tourism and Transportation development Corporation, respondent No. 5 (hereinafter referred to as the dttdc ). It is stated in the petition that the scheme envisaged construction of flyover along the ring road and construction of service road on either side of ring road. A survey was conducted by the respondents and portions which are required for service road and footpath were marked. A list of 48 affected persons was prepared by the respondents and this list indicates the size and the area of portions of the shops and other establishment which are required for construction of service road and footpath. According to this list, prepared in december,1993, only 4356. 12 sq. metres of the land belonging to the petitioners and other land owners was needed. The respondent No. 4, i. e. Secretary, Land and Building Department Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi sent a copy of the said Joint Survey list for acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners, to the ADM (LA) on 12th January, 1994. It was also decided at that time to rehabilitate the marble dealers and others through the Delhi development Authority by providing commercial and industrial plots. It was proposed at that time to acquire, on the basis of this survey, 5 bighas 14 biswas land of village Basai Darapur. It was required for construction of flyover at Raja garden intersection for providing service road and footpath and draft notification was prepared for this purpose. However, nothing happened for almost three years and in August, 1997, the Public Wol s Department (PWD) again thought it fit and proper to confirm from the sanctioned layout plans of the DLF about the actual width of the ring road. Necessary exercise was undertaken in this behalf and it was found that the land required would be 3700 sq. metres by the respondent No. 5. This decision taken in joint meeting of all officers concerned on 18th August, 1997 was also circulated which led to fresh survey and this survey yielded that the actual requirement of respondents for construction of service road comes to 3685. 12 sq. metres.
( 5 ) THE petitioners state that contrary to
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
