Important Point – Petitioners’ lack of any proof of ownership or lawful possession renders their claim weak and liable to rejection.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. These writ proceedings, challenge the acquisition of land, to the extent of 3841 square metres, located in Model Basti, village Sidipura (the "suit lands" hereafter) on the ground that the notifications issued by the Govt of NCT of Delhi (hereafter "the NCT") are vague and per se illegal; besides, it is also contended that the NCT's proposal to take over possession of certain lands, after demolition of structures built on them is illegal, as it exceeds the areas notified, in respect of which award was made (during the pendency of these proceedings).

2. The petitioners claim to be owners/occupants of buildings and structures, falling part of the acquired lands, which were the subject matter of a notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the old Act" or the "LA Act" hereafter), issued on 20.04.2010. The NCT dispensed with the requirement of hearing and orders, under Section 5A of the old Act, invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17. It thereafter proceeded to issue declaration, under Section 6 of the old Act, on 28.06.2010. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the old Act, were issued on 05.07.2010 pursuant to which 18 individuals made their claims.

3. On the first date of hearing, i.e. 29.11.2010, the court made the following order, refusing interim relief:

"We are not inclined to grant interim relief at this stage in this case for the reasons that the notification under Section 4(1) read with sub-sections (1) & (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was issued as far back as 20.4.2010 and the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published on 28.6.2010. Not only that, the land is required for a Grade Separator and another set of petitioners had approached this Court aggrieved by the denial of hearing under Section 5A of the said Act. Those writ petitions were listed on 23.11.2010 where after hearing learned counsels for the parties, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his relief to moving the respondent authorities under Section 48 of the said Act.

Curiously the present petition has been filed on 25.11.2010, two (2) days after passing of the said order for vacation of injunction. It, thus, does appear to us that the petitioners were waiting by the side and when the other set of petitions have failed this petition has been filed only when the date fixed for taking over of possession is tomorrow though the notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act may be different.

We may also notice that the project in question relates to a huge Grade Separator and this Court cannot do realignment of the Grade Separators.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the urgency was only for the Commonwealth Games. We are unimpressed by this because the Grade Separator is required for the larger interest of Delhi and for de-congestion of traffic in a very congested area and it cannot be said that de-congestion measures have to stop after Commonwealth Games."

4. On 16.12.2010, the following order was made in this case:

"It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that though the possession of part of the area sought to be acquired has been taken over, for the remaining area measurement process is taking place at site. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners do not know the extent of loss of their properties as their properties are often behind other properties. It is thus agreed that the exact measurements showing the extent to which the possession of the properties has to be taken over will be indicated at site to facilitate the petitioners to remove the construction from the affected area themselves and to strengthen the remaining area if they so choose. In order to facilitate the aforesaid, petitioners who want to remove the construction from t