G.S.SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
Sarjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
G.S. SISTANI, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners. The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioners is deemed to have lapsed as physical possession has not been taken, although compensation has been paid. Another ground which has been raised before us is that the land was acquired for the purposes of Rohini Residential Scheme, however, the land is sought to be diverted to the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC) for creation of industrial zone and it is prayed that on this ground alone the notifications and the award should be quashed.
2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in the case of Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Anr. v. G.Jayarama Reddy and Ors., reported at 2011 XI AD : (SC) 132 in support of his submission that the land acquired for a specific purpose cannot be transferred for another purpose. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Sharma on para 25, which is reproduced below:
“25. The next question which merits examination is whether the High Court was justified in
Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Govt. of A.P. and Anr. v. Syed Akbar
Gulam Mustafa and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Mangal Oram and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Anr.
State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai Alias Kalal and Ors.
Sulochana Chandrakant Galandi v. Pune Municipal Transport and Ors.
Union of India and Ors. v. Jaswant Rai Kochhar and Ors.
V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer and Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.