Back
High Court Of Delhi
LAKHBIR CHAND - Appellant
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 372 of 1972
Decided On : 09/14/1978
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTICES UNDER SECTIONS 9(3) AND 10(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY - EFFECT OF NON-SERVICE OR DEFECTIVE SERVICE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 4, 5-A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33 - SCHEME OF THE ACT - PURPOSE OF NOTICES - CONSEQUENCES OF NON-SERVICE OR DEFECTIVE SERVICE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - COMPENSATION - APPORTIONMENT - RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION - PROVISO 3 TO SECTION 31(2) - DEFINITION OF LAND UNDER SECTION 3-A.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the legality of the land acquisition proceedings and the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, claiming that the notices under Sections 9(3) and 10(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not duly served or were defective, and that the land had been built upon and was not to be acquired as per government policy.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, requiring the Collector to serve notices on the occupier and interested persons, are not mandatory but directory. The purpose of the notices is to afford an opportunity to the interested persons to make a claim for compensation, and the failure to serve notices or the service of defective notices does not prejudice their right to compensation. The proceedings resulting in the award are administrative and not judicial, and the award is only made final and conclusive evidence of the true area and value of the land and the apportionment of compensation among the interested persons, subject to determination by the Court on reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Court also held that the definition of land under Section 3-A of the Act includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth, and therefore, any superstructure existing on the land at the time of the notification for acquisition would be included in the acquisition.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, requiring the Collector to serve notices on the occupier and interested persons, are mandatory or directory. 2. Whether the failure to serve notices or the service of defective notices under Sections 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act renders the subsequent proceedings and the award illegal or void. 3. Whether the land that had been built upon was excluded from acquisition as per government policy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are directory and not mandatory. The purpose of the notices is to afford an opportunity to the interested persons to make a claim for compensation, and the failure to serve notices or the service of defective notices does not prejudice their right to compensation. 2. The proceedings resulting in the award are administrative and not judicial, and the award is only made final and conclusive evidence of the true area and value of the land and the apportionment of compensation among the interested persons, subject to determination by the Court on reference under Section 18 of the Act. 3. The definition of land under Section 3-A of the Act includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth, and therefore, any superstructure existing on the land at the time of the notification for acquisition would be included in the acquisition.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions challenging the legality of the land acquisition proceedings and the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition and C. W. Petition No. 371 of 1972 are under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and pray for the issue of a writ, order or direction, declaring that the award No. 22/1970-71 made on 29th of July, 1970. by the Land Acquisition Collector is illegal and void, in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners and consequently quashing the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land and building of the petitioners.
( 2 ) ONE Mehta Krishan Lal was the owner in possession of an open plot of land bearing No. A-8 measuring 200 sq. yards forming part of killa No. 12 Rectangle 50 situated in village Khureji Khas, Delhi, known as Janta Park. Lakhbir Chand petitioner purchased half portion of the above-said plot i. e. 100 sq. yards, by means of a sale-deed dated Aug. , 10, 1955 (copy Annexure A in C. W. Petn. No. 372 of 1972 ). Smt Saraswati Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Ram Prakash purchased the other half portion of the said plot i. e. 100 sq. yds. by means of a registered sale-deed dated August 10, 1955 (Copy Annexure A in C. W. Petition No. 371 of 1972) Lakhbir Chand claims to have constructed on the aforesaid land to or about the year 1958. Ram Prakash claims to have constructed on the aforesaid land in the year 1960 and both claims to be residing there with their families. It is the admitted case of the parties that the land of Khasra No. 50/12/1 (m which the land of the petitioners is included) in village Khureji Khas, Delhi was notified under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide Notification No. F-15/11/59/lsg dated November 13, 1959. This is commonly known as general notification in which 34,070 acres of land was covered. Certain owners filed objections under S. 5-A of the Act. They were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector and a report made to the appropriate Government. The Delhi Administration issued a declaration under S. 6 of the Act for the acquisition of an area measuring 2936 Bighas 5 Biswas of land situated in village Khureji Khas by the declaration dated March 18, 1966. It is again admitted that the aforesaid Khasra No. 50/12/1 in village Khureji Khas was covered by the declaration dated March 18, 1966.
( 3 ) THE Land Acquisition Collector issued notices under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act. Lakhbir Chand claims that the Collector issued notice dated February 20, 1970 in the name of Lakhbir Chand calling upon him to put up his claim for compensation on 6th of April 1970. This notice is stated to have been received by Lakhbir Chand s daughter aged 11 years Mohini on 8-4-1970 after the date of hearing. In the reply affidavit it is stated that the notices under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act were served on Lakhbir Chand on 4-4-1970 through his daughter Mohini Sharma and the said notice called upon Lakhbir Chand to file his claim on April 20, 1970. In Ram Prakash s case the allegation is that no notice under S. 9 (3) of the Act was served on the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest. In the reply affidavit it is stated that the name of Ram Prakash did not exist in the revenue records of the village either as an owner or as an occupier, and, therefore, no notice under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act was served on Ram Prakash individually. It is, however, pleaded in both the cases that publicity as provided under S. 9 (1) of the Act was given in the locality inviting claims/objections from all the interested persons in the land notified under S. 6 of the Act in notification dated 18th of March 1966. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector, the land was measured on the spot by the Land Acquisition field staff and the details of the area proposed to be acquired are given in the award itself. It includes in it, inter alia, rectangle No. 50 Killa No. 12. 00 (1-15) measuring 2 Bighas 2 Biswas. The classification of the land according to the revenue records is given as G. M. Plot. T
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
