AJAY KUMAR SANGHI vs DELHI POLICE - 2009 Supreme(Del) 948

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Del) 948

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, JJ.
AJAY KUMAR SANGHI ..... Petitioner
Versus
DELHI POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondent
W.P.(C) 7641/2009 & CM Nos. 3794/2009 & 8937/2009
W.P. (C) no. 10518/2009 & CM 9287/2009
Decided on : 1st September, 2009

Advocates appeared
Through:Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv. with Mr Virender Goswami and Mr Vaibhav Kumar, Advs. for Petitioner No.1, Mr S.Paul, Advocate for Petitioner No.2
Through Mr Sanjay Poddar with Mr. N.S. Benipal, Advocates for R-2/LAC Mr Najmi Waziri and Mr Saleem Ahmed, Advs.for R-3 with SHO V.P.Dahiya from P.S. Badarpur Mr Rajesh Mahajan, Adv.for DDA

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - URGENCY - PUBLIC PURPOSE - MALA FIDE - NOTICE - COMPENSATION - VESTING OF LAND - OWNERSHIP - GAON SABHA - DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT - ACQUISITION OF LAND OWNED BY GOVERNMENT - EMERGENCY POWERS.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, owners of land in Tajpul Village, Mathura Road, Delhi, challenged the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the construction of a police station. They alleged that the acquisition was mala fide, without proper notice, and that the land was not required for a public purpose. The Delhi Police claimed that the land was urgently required for the relocation of Police Station Badarpur, which was needed for the construction of a six-lane elevated highway.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the acquisition was not mala fide, as the Delhi Police had a genuine need for the land and had considered other available sites before selecting the petitioners' land. The court also found that the notices required under the Land Acquisition Act had been properly served and that the land was required for a public purpose. The court further held that the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, and that the government was entitled to acquire it even if it was owned by the government.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land was mala fide? 2. Whether proper notices were served under the Land Acquisition Act? 3. Whether the land was required for a public purpose? 4. Whether the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha under the Delhi Land Reforms Act? 5. Whether the government was entitled to acquire land owned by the government?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The acquisition of land was not mala fide, as the Delhi Police had a genuine need for the land and had considered other available sites before selecting the petitioners' land. 2. The notices required under the Land Acquisition Act had been properly served. 3. The land was required for a public purpose. 4. The land had vested in the Gaon Sabha under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. 5. The government was entitled to acquire land owned by the government.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed and the interim order was vacated.

Judgment

V.K.Jain, J.

By this common Order, we will dispose of both the Petitions referred above.

The brief facts, as stated in the petitions, are as follows: The Petitioners are owners of land comprised in Khasra No.97 of Tajpul Village on Mathura Road, Delhi. Initially, the Petitions were filed only by Shri Ajay Kumar Sanghi, impleading the other co-owners namely, Shri Akshay Kumar Sanghi, Shri Nitin Kumar Sanghi and Shri Ashwin Kumar Sanghi. Since it was admitted before us that the Petitioner and Respondents No.4 to 6, namely, Shri Akshay Kumar Sanghi, Shri Nitin Kumar Sanghi and Shri Ashwin Kumar Sanghi, claim to be in joint possession of land in question and there was no lis between them as regards this land, we directed transposition of Respondents No.4 to 6 as co-Petitioners. It was alleged in WP(C) 7641/09 that on 7.3.2001, Respondent No.1 Delhi Police entered the property of the Petitioner without any authority of law and refused to vacate the same. From Newspaper Reports, the Petitioner came to know that since Police Station Badarpur needs to be relocated on account of the existing land on which it is situated being required for Commonwealth Games, the Petitioner apprehends that Respondent No.1 intends to erect a Police Station on their property. The prayer made in the Writ Petition No.7641/2009 is to direct Respondent No.1 Delhi Police to vacate the aforesaid property.

2. Vide an interim order dated 20.3.2009, the learned Single Judge restrained the Respondents from disturbing the status quo with regard to the possession of the property and also restrained them from carrying any construction, altering the existing structure or parting with possession.

3. Respondent No.1 filed a Reply, contesting the Petition. It was stated in the Reply that the entire land of Police Station Badarpur is required by National Highway Authority of India for construction of elevated highway at Badarpur and instructions were accordingly issued to Respondent No.1 to shift Police Station Badarpur to an alternative location. On enquiry from concerned Revenue Authority, it was revealed that five and a half bighas of land with Gaon Sabha Tajpul under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act was, available in Khasra No.97, for a Police Station. A request was accordingly sent to Government of NCT of Delhi, to allocate the aforesaid land to Delhi Police for construction of Police Station Badarpur. Vide letter dated 6.3.2009, the land measuring 5 bighas and 5 biswas, comprised in Khasra No.97 of Village Tajpul, was allotted to Respondent No.1, physical possession of the land was also handed over by the concerned Authority to Delhi Police on 7.3.2009 and, therefore, land in question is in exclusive possession of Delhi Police.

4. During pendency of Writ Petition No.7641/2009, land in question was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, which led to filing of W.P.(C) 10518/2009. It has been stated in this Petition that the Petitioners came across Notification published in Hindustan Times dated 7.7.2009, issued under Sections 6 and 7 of Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the aforesaid property and they later discovered a Notification dated 19.6.2009 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act notifying that the aforesaid property was likely to be acquired and also notifying dispensing with mandatory provisions of Section 5 of Land Acquisition Act simultaneous with publication of Notification under Section 6 and 7. Respondent No.1 also issued a Notification under Section 9(1) and 17(1) directing Respondent No.2 Land Acquisition Collector to take possession of the aforesaid property within fifteen days from the publication of the Notice.

5. The acquisition has been challenged primarily on the grounds that (1) The Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was not published in accordance with law.

(2) Notice as required under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act was not given to the Petitioners.

(3) Land belonging to the Government and pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document