Back
High Court Of Delhi
BALAK RAM GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 1682 of 1985
Decided On : 05/27/1987
None
Fact of the Case:
In this case, the petitioners challenged the validity of certain declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), on the ground that they had been made after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor under the said section. The petitioners argued that, as a result of the delay in issuing the declarations, they had been prejudiced because they were entitled to receive compensation based on the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, and the land value in India had been steadily escalating since the 1950s.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the period during which stay orders were in force should be excluded in computing the validity of the declaration under Section 6. The court found that the declarations were issued within the time limit prescribed by the Act, taking into account the period of stay orders. The court also held that the petitioners' other contentions, such as the absence of a Master Plan for Delhi and the mala fide exercise of the power of acquisition, would have to be dealt with by the Division Bench.
Issues: 1. Whether the declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were made after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor under the said section. 2. Whether the petitioners were prejudiced by the delay in issuing the declarations. 3. Whether the period during which stay orders were in force should be excluded in computing the validity of the declaration under Section 6. 4. Whether the petitioners' other contentions, such as the absence of a Master Plan for Delhi and the mala fide exercise of the power of acquisition, were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the proviso and explanation to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and held that the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification under Section 4(1) is stayed by an order of a Court should be excluded in computing the period of limitation for issuing a declaration under Section 6. 2. The court held that the petitioners were not prejudiced by the delay in issuing the declarations because they were entitled to receive compensation based on the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, and the land value in India had been steadily escalating since the 1950s.
Final Decision: The court answered the principal issue debated before it against the petitioners. The court directed that all the writ petitions be listed before the Division Bench for hearing on the other contentions raised by the petitioners.
( 1 ) A large number of writ petitions have been filed in this Court challenging the validity of certain declarations under S. 6, Land Acquisition Act, (1 of 1894) hereinafter referred to as the Act on the ground that they had been made after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor under the said section. C. W. 1639/85 and 15 other of these petitions were heard by Yogeshwar Dayal and S. B. Wad, JJ. in November, 1985 and judgment was reserved. In the meanwhile, R. N. Aggarwal and Malik Sharief-ud-din, JJ. had heard CW 2850/1985 involving the same issue and delivered judgment on 25-8-1985 upholding the validity of the declaration under S. 6. Since Yogeshwar Dayal and Wad, JJ, were inclined to take a different view, they suggested that the issue may be decided by a Larger Bench, and hence the constitution of this Full Bench. As many as 73 writ petitions have been listed before us and, when we heard these matters, we found that the petitioners in all these cases have also raised several contentions other than the main one referred to above. The result is that, if we decide the above principal issue in favour of the petitioners, all the writ petitions can stand allowed but a decision by us against the petitioners on the main issue will necessitate the hearing of each one of the petitioners on merits in regard to the other contentions that have been raised therein. With these preliminary observations, we proceed to deal with the contentions urged before us on the above issue first.
( 2 ) IT is a well-known fact that, commencing from 1959, huge tracts of land in and around the city of Delhi have been acquired by the Government under the Act for facilitating the "planned development of Delhi". We are concerned here with two notifications issued under S. 4 of the Act, one on 5-11-1980 and the other on 25-11-1980. Under the former, the Government notified its intention to acquire the entire land comprised in the villages of Tughlakabad, Tigri, Deoli, Khanpur, Said-ul-Ajaib, Neb Sarai, Hauz Khasi and Khirki. By the latter was notified the intention to acquire the entire lands situated in the revenue estates of the villages of Chattarpur, Satbari, Maidangarhi, Sayoorpur and Rajpur Khurd.
( 3 ) THE notification of an intention to acquire any land under S. 4 of the Act has to be followed up by an enquiry under S. 5a on objections from persons interested in the land (except in cases falling under S. 17) and then a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose. Originally, the Act did not prescribe any period of limitation for the issue of the declaration. This created problems. A person whose land is eventually acquired is entitled to receive compensation computed on the basis of the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under S. 4 and, since land value in India has been steadily escalating since the fifties, any delay in the issue of a declaration under S. 6 worked greatly to his prejudice. On the other hand, Governments stood to gain by such delay in the sense that they could take possession of lands by paying compensation therefor at its much lower market value on the date of S. 4 notification and it was found that there was inordinate delay, for one reason on the part of Governments in issuing declarations under S. 6. The inequities of the situation were pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of M. P. v. Vishnr Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593. The legislature there upon intervened by issuing the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance on 29-1-1967, followed up by an Act (XIII of 1967) of the same name on 12-4-1967. These inserted the following as the first proviso in S. 6 ( 1) :
"provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under S. 4, sub-s. (1), published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such publica
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
