Back
High Court Of Delhi
BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVINGMILLS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 205 of 1974
Decided On : 07/09/1990
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - DELAY - POLICY DECISION - ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS QUASHED: - Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifying the land to be acquired for public purpose, is valid if it gives the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired and is not vague. - Public purpose mentioned in the Notification as 'planned development of Delhi' is not vague, especially considering the interim Master Plan prepared and given due publicity. - Delay in issuing Notification under Section 6 of the Act is excusable if a large number of objections had been filed challenging the Notification under Section 4. - Policy decision taken by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, fixing priorities for land acquisition, is binding and must be adhered to. - Acquisition proceedings initiated for land where the object of acquisition (construction of residential houses) has already been fulfilled by constructing staff quarters for laborers, are liable to be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner company challenged the acquisition proceedings of 11 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 56 and 819 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 57 located in Rajpura Chawni, Delhi, for the planned development of Delhi. The petitioner claimed ownership of the land and had constructed residential quarters for its workers before the Notification was issued.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was valid as it gave the boundaries of the land to be acquired and was not vague. The public purpose mentioned in the Notification as 'planned development of Delhi' was not vague, especially considering the interim Master Plan prepared and given due publicity. The delay in issuing the Notification under Section 6 was excusable as a large number of objections had been filed challenging the Notification under Section 4. The policy decision taken by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, fixing priorities for land acquisition, was binding and must be adhered to. The acquisition proceedings were liable to be quashed as the object of acquisition (construction of residential houses) had already been fulfilled by constructing staff quarters for laborers.
Issues: 1. Whether the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was valid and not vague? 2. Whether the public purpose mentioned in the Notification as 'planned development of Delhi' was vague? 3. Whether the delay in issuing the Notification under Section 6 was excusable? 4. Whether the policy decision taken by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, fixing priorities for land acquisition, was binding and must be adhered to? 5. Whether the acquisition proceedings were liable to be quashed as the object of acquisition had already been fulfilled?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was valid as it gave the boundaries of the land to be acquired and was not vague, relying on the judgment in Alfatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 S.C. 2077. 2. The Court held that the public purpose mentioned in the Notification as 'planned development of Delhi' was not vague, especially considering the interim Master Plan prepared and given due publicity, relying on the judgment in Armold Rodricks v. State of Mahararhtra-, AIR 1966 S.C. 1788. 3. The Court held that the delay in issuing the Notification under Section 6 was excusable as a large number of objections had been filed challenging the Notification under Section 4, relying on the judgment in State of Gujarat and Am. v. Punjabhai Nathubhai and Ors., (1988) 2 S.C.C. 478. 4. The Court held that the policy decision taken by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, fixing priorities for land acquisition, was binding and must be adhered to, as the Lt. Governor is the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi and has the executive power pertaining to the affairs of Delhi Administration. 5. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were liable to be quashed as the object of acquisition (construction of residential houses) had already been fulfilled by constructing staff quarters for laborers, relying on the judgments in Hukam Chand v. Union of India; AIR 1988 S.C. 40 and GhaziabadSheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 S.C. 645.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question, and left the parties to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the acquisition proceeding pertaining to 11 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 56 and 819 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 57 located in Rajpura Chawni.
( 2 ) A Notification dated November 13, 1959 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act indicating the intention of the Government to acquire land measuring 34, 070 acres as shown in the map attached to the Notification as Annexure 1 comprised in Blocks A to T and X for public purpose namely the planned development of Delhi. It was made clear in the Notification that the Map could also be inspected by the persons concerned in the various offices mentioned therein. Subsequently, a Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated December 30, 1968 was issued and it refers to 56 Bighas arid 6 Biswas of land of Rajpura Chawni comprising various field numbers enumerated therein including field Nos. 56 and 57. Thereafter on September 7, 1973, a notice under Section 9 was issued to the petitioner company wherein reference has been made to land comprising Khasra No. 56. Petitioner company had filed an application, copy of which is Annexure a with the Land Acquisition Collector in order to verify whether the aforesaid notice issued under Section 9 pertains to only land comprised in Khasra No. 56 or not on which the Collector gave the clarification that the aforesaid notice related to the land camprised in Khasra No. 56 as in evident from the notice itself. This writ petition was filed on January 31, 1974 but thereafter with a view to urge additional grounds, the writ petition was amended and amended writ petition was filed on January 27, 1977.
( 3 ) IN the amended writ petition it is pleaded by the petitioner that petitioner is the owner of land measuring 2 Bighas and 10 Biswas in Kham Khewat No. 56 (II Biswas) 57 (8. 019 Biswas), 59 (15 Biswas), 76 (1. 3 Biswas ). 77 (10. 8. Biswas), 58 (14 Biswas of Khata Nos. 30/41, 42/43, 30/44, 40/58, 59 60 with shamlat rights situated at Mauza Rajpura Chhaoni Band Stand Road, Delhi and this land was purchased by the petitioner alongwith evisting houses and constructions vide Sale Deed dated July 28, 1947 and thereafter the petitioner had constructed residential quarters for it workers in addition to the building and construction already existing on the aforesaid land. It was averred that petitioner company had purchased the aforesaid land for the purpose of providing residential quarters to its workers and had already constructed the quarters before the Notification was issued and hundreds of its workmen stand housed in the said quarters and the said locality is now known as Khilone Wala Bagh.
( 4 ) BEFORE I refer to various pleas urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it must be clarified that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sanghi produced before me a photo copy of the Khasra Girdavari of Khasra No. 56 and 57 of the period Kharif 1955 to Rabi 1959 which indicate that II Biswas of land in Khasra No. 56 at all the relevant time was recorded as vacant whereas in Khasra No. 57 there existed a Kothi in area 4. 9 Biswas and the other land was shown as cultivated with various crops being raised as mentioned in the said Khasra Girdavari but since Khariff 1958 the whole of the area 8. 19 Biswas is recorded as comprising of quarters. So, it is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the panics was that at the time the Notification under Section 4 was issued at least Khasra No. 57 was wholly built up while Khasra No. 56 was lying vacant.
( 5 ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in challenging the said acquisition proceedings is that the Notification issued under Section 4 is illegal in as much as it did not particularise the land to be acquired in any definite manner and as the mandatory requirement of Section 4 has not been complied with , the Notification issued under Section 4 is lia
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
