(July 24, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125223

2001-DLT-92-891 :: 2001-AD (Del)-6-597

DIPAK BHARDWAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Arun Kumar

( 1 ) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged a Notification No. F. 7 (7)/97/landb/la/ 4252 dated 24/06/1998 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) of the Land acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). By the impugned notification large tracts of land including the land of the petitioners falling in village Samalkha within the National Capital Territory of Delhi are being compulsorily acquired. Section 17 of the Act has been invoked and the provisions of Section 5a of the Act have been dispensed with. The notification has been challenged on various grounds. However, the first and foremost ground of challenge is that invocation of section 17 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case is wholly illegal and unjustified. According to the petitioners there is total non-application of mind on the part of the State Government in invoking Section 17 of the Act as also in dispensing with Section 5a of the Act. It is argued that it is a case of colourable exercise of power on the part 6f the State Government.

( 2 ) IN support of his argument that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the State Government in invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Act the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that no material was placed before the. Lt. Governor who exercises the power of the State Government so as to enable him to form an opinion about urgency so as to press in service Section 17 of the Act. In view of the categorical assertion on the part of the petitioners that there is absolutely no material on record to justify resort to Section 17 of the Act, the respondents were required to produce the relevant records. We have perused the records produced by respondents and we find that there is not a single document or noting on the file to suggest any urgency from any quarter in completing the acquisition or for making out a case for invocation of Section 17. That is why the proposal received from the Rural Development Department by the Land Acquisition Department in march, 1997 was dealt with in a routine manner and the impugned notification was issued only in June, 1998. However, the final note of the Dy. Secretary (LA) dated 9/06/1998 reads as under:

"the proposal was received from Project Director, Rural Development vide her letter No. F. 56/mmp/rd/96-97/3970-74 dated 26. 3. 1997 for acquisition of land in village Samalkha under Mini Master Plan for construction of growth Point at page 3/c. The above proposal was sent to SDM/lac (Vasant Vihar) for furnishing of draft notification and 80% estimated cost of acquisition etc. is at page 6/c. The draft notification for 453-18 bigha of land alongwith 80% estimated compensation amount was furnished by SDM/ lac vide his letter dated 10. 12,1997 at page 49/c. On scrutiny of draft notification and other relevant documents by the Tehsildar (Landb) certain discrepancies were noticed when compared with the proposal of RD department. In a meeting held in the Chamber of Secretary (Revenue/land) on 8. 5. 1998 when the Project Director of Rural Development was also present, after discussions about the discrepancies in the above notification and not tallying with the proposal of the RD Department. The Project Director (RD) stated that in the proposal/cases of RD Department the reliance should be made on the draft notification received from SDM/lac. The revised draft notification for 377-07 bighas of land at village Samalkha alongwith 80% compensation amount has been furnished by SDM/lac (Vasant Vihar) vide his letter dated 27. 5. 1998 is at page 100/c which has again been checked by the Tehsildar (Landb) is at page 16/n and reported to be in order. The Joint survey Report may kindly be seen at Pages 67/c to 76/c. In view of the above, if approved, we may request th