Back
High Court Of Delhi
SHAKUNTALA B.MODA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 342 of 1990
Decided On : 05/28/1991
Held
that it is true that there is no mention of the word urgency in the impugned notification. However, can a notification be declared to be bad in law simply on that score ? Our answer to the above query is an emphatic no. We feel that a mere omission to mention the word urgency would not ipso facto render a particular notification illegal or invalid if the urgency can be shown otherwise by the words used in the impugned notification. It is fully manifest that the lands mentioned in the impugned notification were being acquired for a public purpose which was of an emergent nature, i.e. for rehabilitation of the persons displaced or affected due to expansion/development of the Palam Airport. We feel, can there by more urgent matter than to have a roof over the heads of the teeming millions of this country. The need or urgency to rehabilitate the persons displaced or affected owing to the expansion and development of a particular project can hardly be over emphasised. There could be nothing more sacrosanct than this purpose.
Section 17(2) of the Act is only illustrative in nature and is not exhaustive of all the cases of urgency. It is not necessary for the Government in every case to use the expression of urgency while issuing the notification for the purpose of acquiring lands for a public purpose. If they are in a position to show the urgency otherwise by the evidence on record.
It is crystal clear from the above thai the use of the words urgency in a particular notification acquiring land is not a sine qua non of the said notification inasmuch as the urgency can be proved aliened by the other evidence which may be brought on record.
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 - Section 4 — Public purpose — What is
HELD:
The lands mentioned in the impugned notification were being acquired for a public purpose which was of an emergent nature, i.e., for rehabilitation of the persons displaced or affected due to expansion/development of the Palam Airport.
The Scheme framed by the Government for providing house sites to the landless workers in the rural areas is obviously in the public interest and is, thereforee, a "public purpose".
Section 17 — Acquisition under — Delay ID development of land — Effect of
The impugned land could not be developed and the villagers of village Mangal Dewat could not be rehabilitated on account of certain administrative delays and on account of squatters who unauthorisedly occupted the said land. Furthermore, the squatters obtained injunction orders, even the petitioners obtained the stay orders from this court with the result that no effective fiction could be, taken to develop the said land.
Hence, they cannot be allowed to take advantage of the said situation which is their own creation.
Section 17 — Notification issued under — No mention of word "urgency" — Effect of.
We feel that a mere ommission to mention the word urgency would not ipso facto render a particular notification illegal or invalid if the urgency can be shown otherwise by the words words used in the impugned notification.
It is not necessary for the Government in every case to use the expression of urgency white issuing the notification for the purpose of acquiring lands for a public purpose. If the are in a posit ion to show the urgency otherwise by the evidence on record.
Section 17(2) — Weather exhaustive of the cases of urgency in which it cm be Invoked. Acquision to provide house sites to landless workers If urgent.
We are of the view that Section 17(2) of the Act is only illustrative in nature and is not exhaustive of all the cases of urgency.
We feel, can there by more urgent matter than to have a roof over the heads of the teeming millions of this country ? The need or urgency to rehabilitate the persons displaced of affected owing to the expansion and development of a particular project can hardly be over emphasised.
Section 17 (4)-Formation of opinion under-Considerations — And if open to judicial review.
It is well established principle of law that formation of an opinion or the satisfaction of an authority under Section 17(4) of the Act is subjective. Hence, it has been left entirely to the discretion and decision of the appropriate Government as to whether there is an urgency or not in a particular case. (1973 (2) SCC 227 and 1977 SCC 133 followed
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226 — Delay & laches — Effect of.
Admittedly, the impugned notification in the instant cases was issued op 23.12.1986, The writ petitions were filed towards the, close of the year, 1989 or in the beginning of the year 1990, Thus the present writ petitions were filed, after, the expiry of a period of 3 years. Consequently, the petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone
Further more, the petitioners in the instant case have accepted the compensation in respect of the lands acquired by the Government They have thereafter applied to the Land Acquisition Collector for the enhancement, of the compensation Reference petitions were filed in all the cases and forwarded to the court of Additional District Judgs.
Thus the subsequent, conduct of the petitioners is contrary to, and in consistent with their own stand which they have taken in the present cases. We feel the petitioners would be deemed to have acquiesced in and agreed to the acquisition proceedings. It is now too late in the day to challenge the same before the court.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS through the present writ petitions have challenged the legality and the validity of the notifications No. F. 7 (2)86 Landb (l)22025-39,dated 23rd day of December, 1986 issued by the Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration, Delhi under Sections 4 and 17 of the land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act in order to facilitate reference) where by land measuring 73 bighas. 02 biswas situated in village Rangpuri, Delhi, fully detailed in the above said notification belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the Government.
( 2 ). All the above petitions are being disposed of through the present judgment as common questions of law and fact are likely to arise while dis- posing them of.
( 3 ). Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr N S. Dalal has vehemently contended before this court that there was no application of mind before (he issue of the impugned notification Neither there is any reason nor justi- fication for the application of the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act in the instant case. In any case, no reason, whatsoever has been mentioned in the above said notification. It is a well established principle of law that the provisions of Seciton 17 (4) of the Acs can be applied only in those discerning few cases whese there was an urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings of Section 5-A of the Act should have been eliminated. According to the learned counsel all the cases of the urgency find a mention in Section 17 (2) of the Act Hence, no notification under Section 17 (4) of the Act can be issued unless the case falls well within the domain of Section !7 (2 ). The rehabilitation or the displaced persons does not, according to the learned counsel, fall within the ambit of Section 17 (2) of the Act. Thus the respondents could not have made use of the provisions of the said section.
( 4 ). Learned counsel for the respondents Dr. N. S, Sidhu, Shri B. S Mathur and Miss Pinky Anand have urged to the contrary. Dr. Sidhu has strenuously argued that it is false and preposterous to argue that there was no application of the mind prior to the issue of the impugned notification. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi was the sole and the only judge to examine ai Co whether there was urgency or not ? He after having decided on consideration of all the relevant material that there was such an urgency, the petitioners cannot be allowed to argue that there was no justification for the excrcise of such a power under Section 17 (4) of the Act. It has next been urged that the petitioners have received the compensation in respect of all the lands acquired by the Government. Hence, they are now estopped from challenging the acquisition proceedings. They will be deemed to have, acquisced in and accepted the factum of acquisition. The notifica- tion in the instant case was issued in the Delhi Extra-Ordinary Gazette on 23rd December, 1986. The writ petitions were filed either towards the close of the year 1989 or in the beginning of the year 1990. i. e. , nearabout 3 years after the publication of the impugned notification. Consequently, the present writ petitions are, highly belated and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands in as much as they have concealed the material facts. They have gone to the extent of keeping the respondent No 5 out of the array of parties, knowing fully well that they were the most affected party by the present proceedings.
( 5 ). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and have given our anxious thoughts thereto.
( 6 ). Since we are concerned with the construction of Section 4, section 3-A and section 17 of the Act, the provisions of the said sections of the Act can be adverted with profit before proceeding any further in the matter. Section 1 reads as under :
"4 (1) Whenever it a
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
