Back
2003 Supreme(Del) 969
High Court Of Delhi
N.K.AHUJA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 5321 of 2000
Decided On : 10/01/2003
ANAND YADAV, GITA MITTAL, SANJAY PODDAR, Shobhna Takiar
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9, 11-A, 48 — Withdrawal of acquisition — Delay in taking possession — Proceedings cannot deemed to be withdrawn as there is absence of provision in the Act about automatic termination of acquisition proceedings — Once the award is made it continues to be operative, date of possession may be differed-Application rejected. Held:
The acquisition proceedings shall lapse in view of the aforesaid provision if the award is not made within period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration. Legislature has made provisions in the Act itself as to when the proceedings either under Section 4 or under Section 6 followed by Section 9 will be terminated automatically on expiration of period mentioned in Sections 6 and 11A. However, Legislature has made no provision with regard to the lapse of acquisition proceedings after making an award. If the provision would have been made that if the possession is not taken of the land within a period of specified time then award will be inoperative or the proceedings shall lapse, the petitioners contention could be considered. But in the absence of such provision, once the award is made it continues to be operative, date of possession may be differed. At the same time if the possession is taken later on, the person would be entitled to get benefit as indicated in the Act.
There must be a notification under Section 48 of the Act. thereforee, withdrawal of acquisition with regard to the lands covered by notification or with regard to certain parcels of land is a must. It may be noted that Section 48 of the Act would not apply to the proceedings covered under Section 36 of the Act. As indicated earlier, the application of the petitioner for withdrawal from acquisition having been rejected and the lands being required for a public purpose, this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed.
( 1 ). This petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents, taking possession of land which vest in Government in view of the award made by Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 1925, copy of which is placed on record (Annexure-C) dated 12. 1. 1967.
( 2 ) NOTIFICATION under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued on 13. 11. 1959 to acquire 34070 acres of land situate in various villages of Union Territory of Delhi including village Tihar. After following the procedure laid down in the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 10. 12. 1961 and subsequently award came to be made on 2. 1. 1967. There is no dispute that the proceedings were challenged by filing writ petition and subsequently by filing Letters Patent Appeal and Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court by the land owners but without success. Therefore, the question of the acquisition is not required to be gone into by this Court.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that in the year 1977 Government announced a policy for regularizing unauthorized colonies in Delhi and in view of this policy the petitioner should not be disturbed. It is further contended that since 1980 no action has been taken by the respondents, the proceedings should be deemed to have been withdrawn more particularly when proceedings were not stayed by any Court. It is submitted that in view of the policy framed by the Government, the lands must be regularized. It was submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and others v M/s. Godrej and Boyce AIR 1987 S. C. 2421 unless and until possession is taken it cannot be said that the land vests in the Government.
( 4 ) IT was further submitted by the petitioner that merely because in a proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Municipal Corporation of Delhi where a statement is made that lands have been acquired and is not liable to pay any tax, which has been accepted by the Court, would not come in the way of the petitioner. It is submitted that Municipal Corporation of Delhi came out with the case that the petitioner has encroached upon the land by constructing boundary wall, as indicated in the plan vide letter dated 15. 5. 1991 (Annexure-H) i. e. a dispute between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the petitioner and that has nothing to do with the acquisition proceedings.
( 5 ) BY filing application (CM. 9368/2003) for an order Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) has prayed to dismiss the writ petition and to vacate the order of stay immediately on the grounds stated in the application. It is in view of this it was submitted by the applicant, DDA that the land is required for Planned Development of Delhi for housing scheme. An application of the petitioner for de-notification was rejected on the said ground and now the Delhi Development Authority has come out with the case that the lands are urgently needed for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation for implementation of that project for Line No. 3 from Barakhamba Road via Connaught Place, Patel Nagar to Dwarka Corridor. The list of lands required for the purpose are indicated in Annexure-III to the application submitted by DDA. The property in question is indicated at Sr. No. 17. In view of the project which is of great importance for the citizens of Delhi, request is made by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation for availability of land free from encroachment.
( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that as colony of Meenakshi Garden was approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the plot of land of the petitioner has been assigned Municipal No. WZ-117, Meenakshi Garden, hence purpose of acquisition has been frustrated. Therefore, direction should be given to the respondents not to take possession of this land.
( 7 ) SO far as the prayers are concerned, the petitioner has prayed that on acc
