Back
High Court Of Delhi
GAJENDRA KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - Respondent
W.P.(C.) 2361 of 1987
Decided On : 03/26/2004
Land Acquisition - Evacuee Land - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4, Section 6 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the issue of whether the land in question was an evacuee land and excluded from the acquisition proceedings under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court analyzed the legal provisions of Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act and their implications on the acquisition proceedings. The court also considered the doctrine of ultra vires and the principle of judicial review in the context of land acquisition proceedings. The judgment highlights the importance of Section 4 notification as a mandatory condition for any acquisition proceedings and emphasizes that in the absence of such notification, subsequent proceedings would be void. The court also addresses the question of whether void orders or proceedings are necessarily quashed in all circumstances and discusses the distinction between void and voidable orders. The judgment concludes that the challenge to acquisition proceedings and award is not maintainable after possession is taken and the land is put at the disposal of the authority. The court cites relevant case law and Supreme Court judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of agricultural land that was acquired by the government under the Land Acquisition Act. They argued that the land was an evacuee property and should have been excluded from the acquisition proceedings under Section 4 of the Act. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that it was filed after the completion of the acquisition proceedings and after the possession of the land was taken. The petitioners argued that the acquisition proceedings were void and illegal due to the absence of a Section 4 notification, and therefore, the writ petition was maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings and award was not maintainable after possession was taken and the land was put at the disposal of the authority. The court emphasized that even in the case of void orders, the aggrieved party must approach before the order is enforced, and considerations like delay, laches, or waiver would become relevant after the order is enforced. The court dismissed the writ petition, citing relevant case law and Supreme Court judgments.
Issues: The main issue was whether the land in question was an evacuee property and excluded from the acquisition proceedings under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also addressed the question of the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the completion of the acquisition proceedings and the possession of the land being taken.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the challenge to acquisition proceedings and award was not maintainable after possession was taken and the land was put at the disposal of the authority. The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court before the order is enforced, and the relevance of considerations like delay, laches, or waiver after the order is enforced. The court cited relevant case law and Supreme Court judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) FACTUAL details of the matter are in a narrow canvass. For this reason the issue involved is also limited. While scanning through the facts, the issue shall also get surfaced. Therefore, it would beapposite to do the exercise of narrating the facts in the first instance.
( 2 ) PETITIONERS claim themselves to be the owners of agricultural land comprising khasra No. 2645 /1896 /1353 (old) 779 (new) in the revenue estate of Mehrauli, Delhi administration. In fact, the father of the petitioners, who came to Delhi after partition of the country in 1947, purchased this land in a public auction. The property at that time was an evacuee property.
( 3 ) VIDE Notification dated 13. 11. 1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) vast tract of land came to be acquired. The land, subject matter of this Notification, measured 34070 acres. This land was marked with block numbers A to T and A in the selected map and the description was given in Annexure-1. However, certain categories of land were excluded from acquisition and description of this exclusion can be found from the notification dated 13. 11. 1959, itself which is as under:
(A) "government land and evacuee land; (b) The land already notified, either under Section 4 or under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for House Building Co-operative Societies mentioned in Annexure III. (c) The land already notified, either under Section 4 or under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, for any Government Scheme; (d) The land under grave yards, tombs, Shrines and the land attached to religious institutions and Waqf property; is likely to be acquired for the above purpose. "we are concerned with category (a), namely, Government land and evacuee land.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued vide Notification dated 2. 1. 1969 specifying Mehrauli with total area of 2 bighas 13 biswas and Khasra nos. 2645/1896/1353 (old) 779 (new ). This obviously covers the land of the petitioners as well. After issuing notices under Section 9, the Award dated 17. 1. 1983 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and possession of the land belonging to the petitioners was taken on 14. 2. 1983. Immediately thereafter orders were passed under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1958, on 28. 2. 1983 thereby placing these lands at the disposal of the DDA. Few years thereafter i. e. on 16. 7. 1987 present writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid acquisition proceedings.
( 5 ) NEAT point urged to press this challenge is that the land was not covered by notification under Section 4 of the Act as it was an excepted land being evacuee land. In order to demonstrate that it was an "evacuee land" even on the date when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13. 11. 1959, the petitioners have stated that although auction took place on 11. 9. 1959 in which the predecessor of the petitioners was highest bidder, this auction was not confirmed immediately. The sale certificate was issued only on 17. 7. 1965 and mutation of this land was done in favour of petitioners father on 28. 12. 1967. On pertinent inquiry, during the arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a letter dated 14. 3. 1962 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Office of Assistant Settlement Commissioner (R) confirming that bid of the petitioners father had been accepted and he should submit necessary documents specified therein and make the balance payment of Rs. 12,200/- in order to get provisional possession of the land. Therefore, on the strength of this letter, the petitioners submit that auction was confirmed only on 14. 3. 1962 and the balance purchase price was deposited thereafter and sale certificate issued on 17. 7. 1965. On the basis of these facts it is contended that although petitioners father became owner of the land only on 17. 7. 1965 on the issue of sale cer
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
