SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(P&H) 2899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Ajit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondent
CWP No. 2446 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-01-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate and Gurdeep Kaur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Anjali Kukar and S.K. Mahajan, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation – Restricted Use of Land located in the vicinity of Indian Air Force stations and defence installations-Land owners are entitled for compensation

Headnote:Works of Defence Act, 1903, S.12, S.16 & S.34 – Claim for Compensation – On account of restrictions imposed on them for use of their land located in the vicinity of Indian Air Force stations and defence installations – Held; Scheme of Act clearly provides that for any restrictions imposed by declaration notified under Act, the landowners are to be suitable compensated – Act does not envisage a situation for acquisition of land depriving the owners of their title – Directions issued to respondent's to take appropriate steps for assessing the compensation payable to landowners within 6 months in view of restrictions imposed under Act. (Paras 6 to 9)

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. The petitioners have approached this court seeking a direction to respondent No. 1 to award compensation to them on account of restrictions imposed on them for use of their land located in the vicinity of Indian Air Force Station and Installations in Gurgaon.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are owners of land, situated on old Delhi-Gurgaon Road, Palam Vihar Extn. Gurgaon. The Government of India issued notification on 14.2.2007, in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3 and 7 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for short, 'the Act') declaring that the land be kept free from buildings and other obstructions. The restrictions imposed were specified in the notification. Final declaration was issued on 13.1.2010. Despite the aforesaid restrictions having been imposed, the petitioners have not been paid any compensation under the provisions of the Act. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in M/s. Travels Star Hotels (India) Limited v. Union of India and others, 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 487.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union of India submitted that the land of the petitioners has not been acquired. Ownership still remains with the petitioners, hence, they are not entitled to any compensation.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

5. The relevant provisions of the Act are extracted below:

"3. Declaration and notice that restrictions will be imposed.-

(1) Whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary to impose restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of any work of defence or of any site intended to be used or to be acquired for any such work, in order that such land may be kept free from buildings and other obstructions, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders.

(2) The said declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate and the place where a sketch plan of the land, which shall be prepared on a scale not smaller than six inches to the mile and shall distinguish the boundaries referred to in Section 7, may be inspected; and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the said declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality.

(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive proof that it is necessary to keep the land free from buildings and other obstructions.

4. Power to do preliminary Acts after publication of notice under sub section 3, sub-section (2)- It shall be lawful for such officer as the [Central Government] may, by general or special order, authorise in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen, at any time after publication of the notice mentioned in section 3, sub-section (2), to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality, to dig or bore into the subsoil, to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether any and, if so, what restrictions should be imposed on the use and enjoyment of the land, to set out the boundaries of the land upon the use and enjoyment of which restrictions are to be imposed, or of any part of such land, to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches, and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle:

Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so.

5. Payment for damage.-The officer so authorised shall at the time of such entry pay or tender payment for all






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top