The court affirmed that failure to comply with procedural provisions in land acquisition does not inherently invalidate the process, stressing the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies for compensation disputes.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. The present writ petition had been originally filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India primarily seeking the following reliefs:

“(a). Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of, striking down and quashing the Notification bearing no.F9/11/L&B/LA/MRTS/9786, dated 13.09.2013 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the 1894 Act, the purported declaration under Section 6, the purported declaration under Section 17(1) and Award bearing no.5/2013-2014 and any and all steps taken or proposed to be taken by the Respondents in pursuance thereof or in furtherance thereof;

(b). issue a declaration declaring that the present acquisition proceedings suffer from malafide, arbitrariness and is a colourable exercise of power;

(c). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or direction in the nature thereof, directing the Respondents to commence and hold fresh proceedings for acquisition of the acquired property in compliance with the applicable law;”

2. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner filed CM 46888/2017 in order to incorporate an additional relief and ancillary amendments to the petition based upon the judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in Tarun Pal Singh v. Lt.Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9789 whereby the proviso under Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT , 2013 (hereinafter ‘the 2013 Act’) was held to be applicable to Section 24(1)(b). Accordingly, the petitioner had sought to amend the petition seeking determination of the compensation in terms of the 2013 Act. The said application was allowed on 21.12.2017. However, during the pendency of the petition, the said judgment of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in Delhi Metro Rail Corporate Ltd. v. Tarun Pal Singh & Ors., (2018) 14 SCC 161 and accordingly, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner on 07.02.2018, fairly conceded that the new grounds raised would not be open to the petitioner.

3. The case arises from the acquisition of the land measuring 10,489.18 sq.mtrs. belonging to the petitioner at Village Bahapur, District Kalkaji, New Delhi for the purpose of the construction of Delhi MRTS Project, Phase-III.

4. As per the petitioner, a piece of land measuring 127.4 acres was acquired by the Delhi State Government for the construction of the Radio Transmission Station in the year 1953 and handed over to the predecessor entity of the petitioner, i.e. Overseas Communication Services. Subsequently, its operations were handed over to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (‘VSNL’). In 1999, the Government of India diluted its share in VSNL to 52% and thereafter, in February, 2002, further sold 25% stake in VSNL to Tata Group. It is stated that Tata Group further acquired shares from an open offer and the market. The name of VSNL was changed to ‘Tata Communications Ltd.’ in the year 2008.

5. It is further stated that on 01.07.2011, the respondent no.5/DMRC issued a letter to the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of NCT of Delhi inter alia requesting for acquisition of two pockets of land at Greater Kailash Enclave on permanent basis for the construction of the Janakpuri-Kalindi Kunj Corr