IMPORTANT POINT
Urgency provisions can be invoked only if even small delay of few weeks or months may frustrate the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act,1894- Sections 17(1) and (4), 5A(2) -Acquisition of land measuring 80 bighas 15 biswas including 21 bighas 3 biswas belonging to appellants for a public purpose of establishment of electric sub-station by Delhi Transco Limited at village Mandoli- Invocation of Section 17(1) and (4) of Act, 1894 by Government of NCT of Delhi dispensing with rule of hearing embodied in Section 5A(2) -If justified- Even though High Court accepted the explanation given by respondents by observing that sub-station in East Delhi is needed to evacuate and utilize the power generated from 1500 MW gas based plant at Bawana-However while doing so Bench completely overlooked that there was long time gap of more than five years between initiation of proposal for establishment of the sub-station and the issue of notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act- If sub-station was to be established on emergency basis, authorities of the DTL would not have waited for five years for invoking of urgency provisions enshrined in the Act-High Court also failed to notice that Government of NCT of Delhi had not produced any material to justify its decision to dispense with application of Section 5A of the Act- The documents produced by parties not contained anything from which it could be inferred that a conscious decision was taken to dispense with application of Section 5A which represents two facets of the rule of hearing that is the right of land owner to file objection against the proposed acquisition of land and of being heard in the inquiry required to be conducted by Collector- No tangible evidence produced by respondents to show that task of establishing sub-station at Mandoli was required to be accomplished within a fixed schedule and the urgency was such that even few months time, which may have been consumed in the filing of objections by land owners and other interested persons under Section 5A(1) would have frustrated the project-Impugned order of High Court set aside-Appeal allowed (Paras 15, 21, 22, 28)
       Facts of the Case :
        The questions which arose for consideration in this appeal are whether the Government of NCT of Delhi could have invoked Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dispensed with the rule of hearing embodied in Section 5A(2) thereof for the purpose of acquiring land measuring 80 bighas 15 biswas including 21 bighas 3 biswas belonging to the appellants for a public purpose, namely, establishment of electric sub-station by Delhi Transco Limited at village Mandoli and whether the Division Bench of High Court had rightly negatived the appellants’ challenge to acquisition of their land.
       Findings of the Court :
        A.Even though High Court accepted the explanation given by respondents by observing that sub-station in East Delhi is needed to evacuate and utilize the power generated from 1500 MW gas based plant at Bawana. However while doing so Bench completely overlooked that there was long time gap of more than five years between initiation of proposal for establishment of the sub-station and the issue of notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act. If sub-station was to be established on emergency basis, authorities of the DTL would not have waited for five years for invoking of urgency provisions enshrined in the Act.
        B. High Court also failed to notice that Government of NCT of Delhi had not produced any material to justify its decision to dispense with the application of Section 5A of the Act. The documents produced by parties not contained anything from which it could be inferred that a conscious decision was taken to dispense with the application of Section 5A which represents two facets of the rule of hearing that is the right of land owner to file objection against the proposed acquisition of land and of being heard in the inquiry required to be conducted by Collector.
        C. No tangible evidence was produced by respondents to show that task of establishing sub-station at Mandoli was required to be accomplished within a fixed schedule and the urgency was such that even few months time, which may have been consumed in the filing of objections by land owners and other interested persons under Section 5A(1) would have frustrated the project.Impugned order of High Court was set aside. Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. The questions which arise for consideration in this appeal are whether the Government of NCT of Delhi could have invoked Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and dispensed with the rule of hearing embodied in Section 5A(2) thereof for the purpose of acquiring land measuring 80 bighas 15 biswas including 21 bighas 3 biswas belonging to the appellants for a public purpose, namely, establishment of electric sub-station by Delhi Transco Limited (for short, ‘DTL’) at village Mandoli and whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had rightly negatived the appellants’ challenge to the acquisition of their land.

2. For deciding the aforesaid questions, it will be useful to notice the events which led to the issue of notification dated 13.10.2009 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act and declaration dated 9.11.2009 under Section 6(1) of the Act.

2.1 It is not clear from the pleadings of the parties and the record produced before the High Court and this Court as to when the decision was taken to establish 400/220 KV sub-station at East of Loni Road but this much is evident that by a communication sent in August, 2004, the DTL requested the Delhi Development Authority (for short, ‘the DDA’) for allotment of land. For the next about 10 months nothing appears to have happened. Between June and October, 2005 different functionaries of DTL made some correspondence inter-se in the matter of establishment of the sub-station. On 5/6.12.2005, Manager (400/220 KV SS&L) sent a communication to the Commissioner (Planning), DDA wherein he emphasized that establishment of the sub-station was necessary to meet the power demand of East Delhi and particularly the upcoming Commonwealth Games. In his reply dated 8.2.2006, Joint Director (MP), DDA informed the DTL that allotment of sites suggested by it is not feasible because site ‘A’ was developed as a park and site ‘B’ was earmarked as a community centre.

2.2 Between January, 2006 and July, 2008, the officers of the DTL, the DDA and the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi exchanged letters on the issue of allotment of land for the sub-station. While the officers of DTL stressed the need for early allotment of land, the officers of the DDA repeatedly expressed their inability to allot the particular site by pointing out that the same was reserved for other purpose. On 28.07.2008, Secretary (Power), Government of NCT of Delhi-cum-CMD, DTL requested the DDA to change the land use of the particular site and inform the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi so that action could be taken for the acquisition of land under Section 17 of the Act. In that letter, it was also mentioned that due to paucity of land, the DTL has proposed to establish a GIS indoor type sub-station which could be accommodated in a space of about 200 x 125 meters as against the original requirement of 700 x 500 meters. The relevant portions of that letter are extracted below:

“In pursuance of above, a meeting was held with Vice- Chairman, DDA on 06.05.2008 wherein a request was made for the allotment of land in East Delhi. Officers of Delhi Transco Limited, State Transmission Utility, along with Officers of DDA and the concerned ADM of the area had identified the land in their joint inspection held on 30th June, 2008. Copy of Khasra Nos. and their Report is enclosed as Annexure-I. However, in the meantime DDA informed that the land in question is not acquired by DDA. It was further informed that as per Master Plan, Agriculture/Green area can be utilized for Utilities. Copy of the letter No. F.6(4)2004/MP/D-127 dated 19.5.2008 is enclosed as Annexure-II. Since the establishment of the Grid Station is of paramount importance for strengthening the power supply in East Delhi, DDA is requested to change the land use and to inform GNCTD so that action be taken for acquisition of the same under Section 17, i.e., for the public utility. Earlier it was prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 3

2012 (1) Supreme 6SUPREME COURT OF INDIAG.S. Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by L.Rs. — AppellantsversusGovernment of NCT of Delhi and others — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 11169 of 2011Decided on : 3-1-2012

IMPORTANT POINT Urgency provisions can be invoked only if even small delay of few weeks or months may frustrate the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired.

Cases Referred (38)

2012 (1) Supreme 6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by L.Rs. — Appellants
versus
Government of NCT of Delhi and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11169 of 2011
Decided on : 3-1-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Urgency provisions can be invoked only if even small delay of few weeks or months may frustrate the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired.