Back
High Court Of Delhi
GURDIP SINGH UBAN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 12/17/1996
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - QUASHING - EFFECT - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - SECTION 4 AND 6 NOTIFICATION QUASHED - BENEFIT EXTENDS TO ALL AFFECTED PERSONS - SECTION 5A OBJECTIONS NOT FILED - NO BAR TO RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for planned development of Delhi, alleging that their land was acquired without following due process and without providing them an opportunity to be heard. They argued that the notifications were quashed by the High Court in a similar case (Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India) and therefore, the quashing should also benefit them, even though they had not filed objections under Section 5A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the quashing of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is not personal to the petitioner who challenged the notifications, but enures for the benefit of all persons who are likely to be affected by such notifications. The Court relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India, which held that litigation challenging land acquisition notifications is a public interest litigation and the quashing of such notifications affects wider interests.
Issues: 1. Whether the quashing of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is personal to the petitioner who challenged the notifications or enures for the benefit of all affected persons? 2. Whether the failure to file objections under Section 5A of the Act bars the petitioners from seeking relief?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the quashing of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is not personal to the petitioner who challenged the notifications, but enures for the benefit of all persons who are likely to be affected by such notifications. The Court relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India, which held that litigation challenging land acquisition notifications is a public interest litigation and the quashing of such notifications affects wider interests. 2. The Court held that the failure to file objections under Section 5A of the Act does not bar the petitioners from seeking relief, as the quashing of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act is not personal to the petitioner who challenged the notifications, but enures for the benefit of all persons who are likely to be affected by such notifications.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, holding that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the quashing of the notifications in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India, even though they had not filed objections under Section 5A of the Act.
( 1 ) THE petitioners Gurdip Singh, Mrs. Har Sharan Mishra and Mrs. Har Kiran have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on. 23-4-1986, praying that the notifications for acquisition issued for planned development of Delhi under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as "the Act"), being dated 25-11-1980 and 7-6-1985 respectively, in relation to the land of the petitioners in village Chhatarpur in the Union Territory of Delhi, be quashed.
( 2 ) THE petitioners asserted that they are the owners and in possession of land in khasra No. 70411, 706j2, 70611, 706,3, 70712, 714, 71512, 90912, 1012 and 693, all situated in the revenge estate of village, Chhatarpur in the Union Territory of Delhi. It was also asserted that the aforesaid lands are allotted to Major General Sujan Singh Uban in lieu of agriculture lands left behind in. West Pakistan. It was further asserted that this land was allotted to Major General Sujan Singh Uban by Sanad dated 27-9-1963. The petitioners became owners of the land as a result of an arbitration award of Shri Ram Singh Uban.
( 3 ) THE aforesaid notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 25-11-1980 purported to exclude certain categories of land from acquisition although they were within the villages land whereof was acquired. These were : (a) Government lands; (b) Land already notified either under Section 4 or under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and (e) the land in respect of which layout plans building plans had been sanctioned by the M. C. D. before 5-11-1980.
( 4 ) THE petitioners also stated that although objections under Section 5a of the Act were invited, but they had not filed any objections under Section 5a of the Act.
( 5 ) IT was also contended that in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, no declaration could be made after expiry of three years from the dale of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, (this period has since been reduced to one year by subsequent amendments ).
( 6 ) THE petitioners further contended that in view of the fact that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued after five years and eight months, the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 25-11-1980 was nullity in the eyes of law in view of the aforesaid amended Section 6 of the Act, and as a consequence of Section 6 notification being a nullity, and as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not issued within a period stipulated by that Section, the land of the petitioners covered by the Section 4 (1) Notification, dated 25-11-1980, stood automatically released from the operation of Section 4 Notification.
( 7 ) THE petitioners also contended that they were filing this petition on becoming aware that the respondents were contending that the notification under Section 6 of the Act was valid, inasmuch as a stay order had been issued by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, restraining the respondents from issuing any declaration under Section 6 of the Act, in Civil Writ Petition No. 426 of 1981 Munilal and Others Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, allowing time taken to get it vacated, the Section 6 B Notification was within time.
( 8 ) THE petitioners further stated that they became aware of difference of opinion between Division Benches of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2850 of 1985, filed by Hemant Sharma and others, and in Civil Writ Petition No. 1639 of 1985-Balak Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India, etc. , which difference of opinion led to directions by the Court that Balak Ram Gupta s case be heard by a larger Bench, which larger bench was yet to hear the said reference.
( 9 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the petitioners in their own right, had questioned the Sections 4 and 6 Notifications during the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 1639 of 1985 (Balak Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India etc. ).
( 10 ) THE Full Bench of the Delhi H
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
