SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Del) 209

High Court Of Delhi
JAI NARAIN - Appellant
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, DELHI - Respondent
Civil 183 of 1969
Decided On : 11/17/1975

Advocates Appeared:
C.K.MAHAJAN, K.B.Soni, S.S.Dalal

The Government has the power to correct an error in a previous declaration and to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even though the notification under Section 4 has been exhausted, by virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - DECLARATION - WITHDRAWAL - POWER OF GOVERNMENT - SECTION 48 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 21 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the declaration issued by the Delhi Administration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds that it was made by the Lt. Governor instead of the appropriate Government and that the notification under Section 4 had been exhausted after the deletion of the land in dispute from a previous declaration.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Lt. Governor was the appropriate Government in the Union Territory of Delhi and that the declaration was not invalid on that ground. The court also held that the Government had the power to correct an error in a previous declaration and to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act, even though the notification under Section 4 had been exhausted.

Issues: 1. Whether the declaration was made by the appropriate Government? 2. Whether the Government had the power to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act after the notification under Section 4 had been exhausted?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Lt. Governor was the appropriate Government in the Union Territory of Delhi, relying on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Management of M/s. Patiala Iron Works v. Union of India. 2. The court held that the Government had the power to correct an error in a previous declaration and to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act, even though the notification under Section 4 had been exhausted, relying on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the Supreme Court decisions in Girdbarilal Amratlal Shodan v. State of Gujarat and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the declaration was valid and that the Government had the power to issue it.

B. C. MISRA

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the declaration of the Delhi Administration dated 20th September, 1968 published in the Gazette on 28th November, 1968 (Annexure A-III) (hereinafter called as the declaration in dispute) under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) (hereinafter called as the Act ). The land in dispute is situated in the revenue state of Chandrawal alias Shahdara. The petition has been filed on the ground that after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 1st November, 1966 published in the Gazette on 10th November, 1966 (Annexure A-I ). The said declaration related to the land in dispute. Eventually another declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 20th September,. 1968 published in the Gazette on 28th November, 1968 (Annexure A-II) (which bears precisely the same date as of Annexure III) and by this declaration the land in dispute of the petitioner was deleted from the previous declaration, and some other corrections were made. On the same day another declaration under Section 6 (Annexure III) was issued which covered the lands in dispute belonging to the petitioner besides two other fields which are not in dispute before me.

( 2 ) IN the writ petition two grounds of attack had been laid, one was that the declaration had been made by the Lt. Governor while it ought to have been made by the appropriate Government and secondly, after the deletion of the lands in dispute by Annexure A-II, the notification under Section 4 had been exhausted and the Government did not have any power to re-issue a declaration without a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act

( 3 ) MR. Dalal has appeared to support the writ petition. So far as the first point is concerned, the matter stands concluded by the decision of this court in Management of M/s. Patiala Iron Works v. Union of India, ILR (1975) 1 Delhi 613 = (1975 Lab 1c 1265) (FB ). It has been held by the said authority that the appropriate Government in the Union Territory of Delhi is the Lt. Governor. This was a case under the Industrial Disputes Act, but the same reasoning will apply to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and Mr. Dalal has very fairly conceded that in view of the said authority, he is unable to press this objection.

( 4 ) THE second contention Mr. Dalal has urged with force. The counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents has explained that the declaration Annexure A-I dated 1st November, 1966 had been issued on the basis of a notification dated 24th October, 1961 under Section 4 of the Act but it had been later discovered that the land in dispute was not covered by the said notification but it was covered by the general notification which had been issued on 13th November, 1959. It was, therefore, necessary to rectify the mistake. Consequently the declaration Annexure A-II was issued deleting the land in dispute from the declaration Annexure A-I but simultaneously a correct declaration was issued on the same date Annexure A-III and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

( 5 ) THE scheme of the Act is quite dear. Under Section 4 of the Act the appropriate Government issues a notification to the effect that the land is likely to be needed for any public purpose and objections are invited and disposed of. Finally if the Government is satisfied, a declaration is issued under Section 6 of the Act to the effect that the land is needed for public purposes and such declaration is published in the Gazette and is a conclusive evidence of the land being needed for public purposes. Thereafter the proceedings under the Act are initiated for making of the award and taking possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the law.

( 6 ) THE power of withdrawal from acquisition is conferred by Section 48 of the Act, relevant portion of which runs as follows:

"except in the case provided for in Section 36, the






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top