Back
High Court Of Delhi
HARKARTAR KAUR - Appellant
Versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR - Respondent
Civil 235 of 1967
Decided On : 01/14/1971
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLICITY - OBJECTIONS - DELAY - CONDONATION - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR - JUDICIAL REVIEW - MANDAMUS - PUBLIC PURPOSE - UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION - ACQUISITION OF VACANT LAND - LACK OF DILIGENCE - NO REAL INJUSTICE - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, alleging that the Collector failed to give public notice of the notification under section 4(1) and did not consider their objections filed late due to the petitioner's absence from Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Collector duly caused public notice of the notification under section 4 to be given at convenient places in the locality. 2. The objections were filed long after the expiry of 30 days as required under section 5a(1) and were, therefore, time-barred. 3. The Collector was not bound to consider objections not filed in accordance with section 5a(1). 4. Even if the Limitation Act applied, the objections did not make out a case for condonation of delay. 5. The Collector's failure to give a personal hearing to the petitioner did not entitle them to certiorari or mandamus, as the objections were untenable and the land was legally vacant due to unauthorized constructions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector gave public notice of the notification under section 4(1) as required by the Land Acquisition Act? 2. Whether the Collector was bound to consider objections filed late due to the petitioner's absence from Delhi? 3. Whether the Collector's failure to give a personal hearing to the petitioner entitled them to certiorari or mandamus?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Collector duly caused public notice of the notification under section 4 to be given at convenient places in the locality, as evidenced by the affidavit of the Secretary (Land and Buildings) Delhi Administration and the presumption of regularity under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. The Court held that the Collector was not bound to consider objections filed late due to the petitioner's absence from Delhi, as section 5a(1) required objections to be filed within 30 days and the Collector's duty to consider objections was limited to those filed in accordance with the statute. 3. The Court held that the Collector's failure to give a personal hearing to the petitioner did not entitle them to certiorari or mandamus, as the objections were untenable, the land was legally vacant due to unauthorized constructions, and there was no real injustice requiring judicial intervention.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE acquisition of the land of Petitioner No. 1 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was challenged in this writ petition on various grou In the light of the subsequent case-law; however, Shri M. S. Vohra, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his challenge to the acquisition to the following two grounds only, namely:-
(1) The notification dated 24th October 1961 issued under section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette. But under section 4 (l) of the Act, "the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality". This was not done by the Collector. and (2) The petitioner No. 1 alleged that she was away from Delhi when the notification under section 4 was published. She, therefore, filed objections to the said notification late, namely, on the 2nd of July 1963. A copy of the objection is at Annexure E to the writ petition. In a note at the end of the objection she said that she had no knowledge about the notification under section 4 and that she came to know about it only four days back and, therefore, the delay in filing the objections be kindly condoned. Inspite of this the Collector did not give her an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a pleader under section 5a (2) of the Act.
( 2 ) THE defence by the Union of India was that the Collector acting under section 4 (1) duly caused public notice of the substance of the notification under section 4 to be given at convenient places in the locality in which the lands, subject of the notification, were situated. Further the objections, if any, were required to be filed by the petitioner No. 1 within 30 days under section 5a (1) of the Act. She did not do so. As the objections were filed long after the expiry of 30 days, they could not be considered by the Collector.
( 3 ) BEFORE considering the petitioners contentions on merit it seems to me that the petitioners have disentitled themselves to relief in this Court by the enormous delay in raising these objections. The first objection could have been raised by the petitioner No. 1 soon after 27th November 1961 when due publicity was given to the notification under section 4 (1 ). The second objection should have been raised by the petitioner No. 1 soon after 2nd July 1963 when the objections were filed. It was not necessary for the petitioners to wait for the issue of the notification under section 6 at all. The writ petition was filed in 1967 which was after the expiry of the period of limitation during which a suit raising the above objections would have been required to be filed. The rule laid down by the Supreme Court in State of M. P. v. Bhailal Bhai, (1964)6 SCR 261 affirmed by the majority in Tilok Chand v. H. B. Munshi (1969)2 SCR 824 that when a writ petition is filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation for the suit it would be regarded as unduly delayed unless there are exceptional circumstances which would justify the entertainment of such a petition after so much delay. There are no such special circumstances justifying, the delay in this case. I hold, therefore, that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this preliminary ground alone.
( 4 ) IF I am wrong in my finding on this preliminary question, then the objections urged by the petitioners above are considered as below:
( 1 ) The affidavit sworn by petitioner No. 2 on behalf of petitioner No. 1 is met by the affidavit sworn by the Secretary (Land and Buildings) Delhi Administration on behalf of the respondents. The former says that the public notice of the substance of the notification issued under section 4 was not given as required by section 4 (1) while the latter says that this was duly done as required by section 4 (1 ). As a rule, it is the petitioner who will fail if no further evidence on this question is adduced before the Court by either part
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
