Back
1971 Supreme(Del) 262
High Court Of Delhi
AFLATOON - Appellant
Versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI - Respondent
L.P.A. 152 of 1971
Decided On : 09/24/1971
B.RANA, D.K.KAPUR, D.R.Dhamija, M.C.CHAGLA, M.S.GANESH, S.PAPPU
The acquisition of land for the planned development of Delhi was a public purpose, even though the land was to be transferred to co-operative house building societies.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - DELAY - COMPENSATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - AWARD - INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
11 appeals against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in 11 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment was delivered on 19. 7. 1971 in No. 303 of 1970. Originally 14 writ petitions were filed by different petitioners. They related to different pieces of land but were posted and heard together as the facts and the points for determination were similar. They were also disposed of by a common judgment. It however seems that out of those 14 petitions, 11 appeals were filed in this Court.
Finding of the Court:
1. The acquisition of land was for a public purpose, namely, the planned development of Delhi, and not for the benefit of co-operative societies. 2. The fact that the land was to be transferred to co-operative house building societies did not make the acquisition invalid, as the societies were merely one of the modes in which the planned development of Delhi was to be effected. 3. The payment of compensation to the appellants was from public revenues and not from the funds of the co-operative house building societies. 4. The delay between the notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Acquisition Act and the making of the award did not operate oppressively on the appellants, as they were entitled to interest on the market value of the land from the date of expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4. 5. The making of two separate awards in respect of the same area of land was justified, as the land belonged to different owners and there were stay orders in respect of some of the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land was for a public purpose or for the benefit of co-operative societies. 2. Whether the payment of compensation to the appellants was from public revenues or from the funds of the co-operative house building societies. 3. Whether the delay between the notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Acquisition Act and the making of the award operated oppressively on the appellants. 4. Whether the making of two separate awards in respect of the same area of land was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The acquisition of land was for a public purpose, namely, the planned development of Delhi, and not for the benefit of co-operative societies. The fact that the land was to be transferred to co-operative house building societies did not make the acquisition invalid, as the societies were merely one of the modes in which the planned development of Delhi was to be effected. 2. The payment of compensation to the appellants was from public revenues and not from the funds of the co-operative house building societies. 3. The delay between the notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Acquisition Act and the making of the award did not operate oppressively on the appellants, as they were entitled to interest on the market value of the land from the date of expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4. 4. The making of two separate awards in respect of the same area of land was justified, as the land belonged to different owners and there were stay orders in respect of some of the land.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, but there was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of a batch of 11 appeals against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in 11 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment was delivered on 19. 7. 1971 in No. 303 of 1970.
( 2 ) ORIGINALLY 14 writ petitions were filed by different petitioners. They related to different pieces of land but were posted and heard together as the facts and the points for determination were similar. They were also disposed of by a common judgment. It however seems that out of those 14 petitions, 11 appeals were filed in this Court.
( 3 ) THERE is no dispute as to facts which lie in a narrow compass. On 13-11-1959 a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which will hereafter be described as the Acquisition Act, was issued in respect of an area of 34070 acres of land stating that the said land was required by the Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, the planned development of Delhi.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY on 18-3-1966 a declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act was notified in respect of 2936 acres of land in village Khureji Khas comprising inter alia, the various lands belonging to the petitioners in the 14 petitions instituted in this Court.
( 5 ) IN February 1970, notices under Section 9 (1) of the Acquisition Act were issued to the petitioners requiring them to state their objections if any, to the measurements of the respective lands and their claims regarding area and assessment of compensation. Thereupon 14 petitions were filed which were dismissed. Eleven persons have now come up in appeal and their prayer is that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Acquisition Act, be quashed.
( 6 ) THE respondents are the same in all the writ petitions and the appeals. They are (1) Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, (2) Delhi Administration and (3) Land Acquisition Collector Delhi. In opposition to the writ petitions, a counter affidavit of Shri K. N. Kashyap, Deputy Secretary (Land and Building) Delhi Administration was filed on behalf of the respondents in each of the writ petitions.
( 7 ) SUBSEQUENT to the filing of the writ petitions, award No. 22 was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 29-8-1970. Thereupon one of the petitioners filed an application (C. M. No. 2063 of 1970) praying for permission to amend his writ petitions by addition of certain paragraphs challenging the award made in respect of his land. The amendment was allowed by Rajinder Sachar J. on 19-11-1970. The said petitioner again filed another application (C. M. No. 813 of 1971) praying for further amendment of his writ petition by adding certain grounds in paragraph 15 of the writ petitions. This amendment was allowed by Tatachari J. on 22-4-1971.
( 8 ) SIMILAR applications for amendment were filed and allowed in other writ petitions excepting writ petitions Nos. 302, 387 and 388 of 1970.
( 9 ) SHRI Devinder K. Kapur, counsel for the respondents stated that the submissions made in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents in reply to the applications for amendment of the writ petitions may be treated as replies to the amended portions of the writ petitions and that there was no need for fresh counter affidavits being filed by the respondents to the amended writ petitions.
( 10 ) ON behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection was raised to the effect that the writ petitions were filed in 1970 challenging the notifications dated 13-11-1959 and 18-3-1966 and as such the writ petitions should not be entertained in view of the long delay. Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the objection had some force but since the notices under Section 9 of the Acquisition Act, were issued in March 1970 and a rule nisi had been issued in the writ petitions the petitions were disposed of on merits rather than on the ground of delay.
( 11 ) AT the hearing of the appeals, counsel for the respondent reiterated the preliminary objectio
