N.N. Verma vs Union Of India, Etc.
1987 Latest Caselaw 493 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Wad, J.

(1) These two W.P. are filed by Shri N.N. Verma, the coloniser of Shyama Prasad Mukerjee Park Colony and the the Association of the plot holders of the colony. They have challenged the decision of the respondents not to release 12.58 acres from land acquisition and have prayed for a restraint order against the respondents for interfering with their possession. According to them the layout plan for the colony measuring 32.58 acres in the village Tatarpur and Chaukhandi, Delhi, was sanctioned by Delhi Development Provisional Authority, the predecessor of the D.D.A. They claim that in the sanctioned plan, the disputed 12.58 acres of land was earmarked for commercial purposes such as cinema theatre, petrol pump and shops. Submission of the petitioners is that the said land measuring 12.58 acres was released from acquisition Along with land of 20 other colonies) by the decision of the Govt. of India announced in the Parliament by Shri Karmarkar, the then Minister on 10.3.1960. But inspite of the said decision the respondents are not releasing the land Cw Ps 2174, misinterpreting the said decision of the Govt. of India to mean that only the land for residential purposes (as against commercial) was intended to be released from the land acquisition. Through C.M. 3858 of 1982, the petitioners have further prayed that the acquisition proceeding in relation to said 12 58 acres be quashed. They have also prayed for a direction to correct the figure of '20' acres mentioned in the Delhi Admm. Gazette Noti. of 1.7.1960 and to substitute the same by "1,54,500 sq. yards" and a declaration that the possession of the said disputed land taken by the Dda is illegal.

(2) Land measuring 32.58 acres in the village Tatarpur and Chaukhandi, Delhi, was purchased by N.N. Verma in 1953 as a sole proprietor of M/s. Delhi Land and Dev. Corn. for development of a colony. In 1955, the Central Govt. issued an Ordinance called Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Ordinance (which later on became an Act) and established Delhi Dev. Provisional Authority for planned development of Delhi. N.N. Verma submitted a layout plan for the colony named as Shyama Pd. Mukherjee Park to the said Authority who sanctioned it in 1957. The resolution of the Authority sanctioning the layout plan mentioned area of the colony as 20 acres. According to the petitioners, this was a mistake. The land comes to 32.58 acres.

(3) In 1959, the then Prime Minister directed the concerned authorities to freeze large tracts of lands around Delhi to control speculation in lands sales. On the instructions of the Central Government, the Delhi Adm. issued notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 13th Nov. 1959, for acquisition of over 34000 acres of land, including the land of the petitioners. But the Govt. had to face a problem. Layout plans for number of colonies were already sanctioned by the Dda and the other local authorities and the Govt. did not intend to acquire the said lands. Therefore, the colonies in regard to which definite particulars were immediately available, were, excluded from acquisition. It was also decided by the Central Govt. that the lands of the colonies whose layout plans were sanctioned, and the information in regard to which was being collected, should be released from acquisition afterwards.

(4) An apprehension was raised in the mind of the members of the various colonies that the Govt. intended to seize their lands. The question was raised by some M.Ps. by call attention notices in Lok Sabha. Therefore, Shri Karmarker, the then Minister made a statement in the Parliament on 10.3.60'; dispelling the fears of the M Ps. and announcing "Govt" have decided, as a measure of meeting acute housing shortage in Delhi that the colonies or areas, layout/building plans of which had been approved by Mcd, Dda or any other competent local authority, may be released from the purview of the Delhi Admn. Noti. No. F. 15 (iii) 59-LSG. dated 13.11.59" This decision was taken early in Jan. 1960. The Minister then stated the names of 21 colonies, including Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Park (with arrears in Sq. Yards) whose lands were decided to be released. The area of Shyama Pd. Mukherjee Park is shown as 1,54,500 sq. yards in the said statement. The Minister then stated. We are asking C.C. to expedite......'

(5) On 1.7.1960 the Delhi Adm. issued a Notification u/s 48 of the Land Acq. Act for release of land of 21 colonies. While in case of 20 colonies the entire land with slight variation was released, as regards S.P. Mukherjee Park only 20 acres of land was released. Thereafter, numerous representations were made by the petitioners for the release of the remaining 12.58 acres of lands for over 20 years, to Union of India, Delhi Admn., Mun. Corpn. and the DDA. Questions were raised in Parliament by the M.Ps., and some of them personally took up the matter with the concerned Minister. The original file is replete with memoranda of such meetings which the Central Govt. held in which the Delhi Admn. and the Dda participated.

(6) According to Dda the actual physical possession of the said land measuring 12.58 acres was taken by Delhi Admn. in 1963. This claim is seriously contested by the petitioners. In October, 1963 N.N. Verma made an application u/s 18 of the Land Acqn. Act for reference to the D.J. This application was made without prejudice' to right of the petitioner's to challenge validity of acquisition, as the limitation period was expiring. In 1974 the application for apportionment of compensation u/s 30 and 31 of the Act was decided by Shri H.C. Goel, A.D.J According to the petitioners the possession of the land was forcibly taken by the Dda in Feb. 1981 when they started demolition of structure. A telegram protesting against the action of Dda is produced from the flies of Central Govt. A commissioner appointed by this Court has broadly stated in his report that the possession appeared to have been taken by the Dda in 1975. The report is contested by the petitioners and DDA.

(7) At the other end, the representations of the petitioners with the intervention of M.Ps. were being considered by the GOI. in consultation with Delhi Admn. and the DDA. The G.O.I through Delhi Admn. directed Shri Boss Mullick, the then Vice Chairman, Dda to have the actual inspection of the land regarding the total area of S.P.Mukherjee Park and to make a report, who after physical verification of the land on the site and after verifying the ownership documents came to the conclusion that the petitioner's land was 28.4. acres. The copy of the report was sent by him to the Joint Secretary of the Works and Housing Department, GOI. and to the Delhi Administration. By two notifications, dated 3.1.1968 and 20.3.1974 the Central Govt. placed the disputed land at the disposal of the Dda u/s 22 of the D.D.Act. In spite of the definite report that the disputed land was 28.4. acres the Govt. of India did not act on the report and gave an option to the petitioners for the release of 23 shop sites in full and final settlement of their claims. The petitioners did not accept the offer. The round of representations by the petitioners, the M.Ps. raising the questions in Parliament and consultation by GOI. with Delhi Admn. and Dda continued. In Feb. 1979 the GOI. decided that the dispute be resolved through arbitration of Shri D.R.Kohli, the then Lt.Gov. of Delhi who expressed his inability to arbitrate in the matter in view of the fact that he had already expressed his views in favor of the Govt. He further wrote that the commitment of GOI., through Ministers' statement in 1960 was fulfillled by 20 acres of land for residential purposes, as it was never the intention of the Minister to release any land for commercial purpose. In June 1979 the petitioners met Shri Sikandar Bakht, the then Housing Minister of GOf. The Minister ordered that there was no justification in retaining the disputed land under acquisition and that it should be released in favor of the petitioner. After the change in the Ministry in 1980 the new Minister Shri P.C.Sethi was persuaded by the officials of the Ministry to refer the matter again to the Lt. Gov., who was also changed by that time. The new Lt. Gov. was Shri Jagmohan. He agreed with the views of the earlier Lt. Gov. Mr. Kohli and informed the Minister that the disputed land should not be released. The petitioners wrote to the new Minister, on 12.7.80, praying that the land measuring 8.5 acres should be released in their favor. They also sent a reminder on 22.8.80. In reply the Ministry informed the petitioner that the matter was under consideration.

(8) But, in the meanwhile, the Govt. of India declared the area around S.P. Mukherjee Colony as development area u/s 12 of the D.D. Act. Under the Master Plan of Delhi a commercial sub-district Centre including a cinema house, office and shop sites was set up near Tagore Garden including the land in dispute. Commercial plots were chalked out and public notice for auction sale was given. It appears that the D.D.A. had sent a demolition squad to the disputed land and started demolition of the constructions on the said land. On 8.2.81 the petitioners sent a telegram to the Ministry and Delhi Admn. informing them of the alleged demolition by the D.D.A. They filed a civil suit, wherein an interim restraint order was passed against the D.D.A against demolition. The said suit was withdrawn by the petitioners and the present writ petition was filed. The D.B. admitted the petition on 13.10.81 and passed restraint order and ordered maintenance of status quo.

(9) Although all the principal decisions in this matter were taken by the Govt. of India and they should have explained to the Court as to why in spite of their decision the disputed land was not released from acquisition, the U.O.I. did not file any counter affidavit, it was left to the D.D.A. to fight out the matter. The D.D-A. was seriously handicapped as they did not have any documents or records in regard to crucial questions raised in the writ petition. The D.D.A. made the application for production of records from Govt. of India and from the Delhi Admn. & MCD. The petitioner also moved an application for production and inspection of the record. From time to time I passed orders for production of records by the said authorities. The Govt. of India claimed privilege. By my order of 3.2.1983 I over-ruled the claim of privilege. I directed the supply of copies of three documents by the Government of India to the other parties in the writ petition. Similar directions in record to two documents were given to the Delhi Administration. After prolonged inspection the D.D.A. filed additional affidavits together with copies of large number of documents.

(10) Shri P.P. Rao, counsel for the petitioners submitted (a) That the announcement made by the Minister on 10.3.1960 Government's decision to release 1,54,500 sq. yards (roughly 32.5K acres) of the petitioner's colony, constituted withdrawl from acquisition u/s 48 of the Land Acq. Act. The announcement in Parliament is sufficient publication u/s 57(4) of the Evidence Act. No Gazette Notification was needed u/s 48 of the Land Acq. Act for withdrawal of and from acquisition ; (b) Subsequent explanations sought to be given by Delhi Admn. and the D.D.A. in regard to the quantum of land and the character of the land to be released cannot be looked into . The said decision does not make any distinction between the commercial land and the residential land for the purposes of release from land acquisition ; (c) The said decision and the subsequent order are in the nature of directions u/s 48 of the Land Acq. Act and S. 41(l) of the D.D. Act and the D.D.A. ; (d) The said decision covered release of land of 21 colonies. Land belonging to 20 colonies was released from acquisition with slight changes, while the huge chunk of petitioner's land measuring 12.58 acres was not released from acquisition. Said decision was acted upon. The respondents are estopped in law from raising a plea that the said decision of the Minister is not an order u/Art. 77 of the Constitution, or that the same was not binding on the respondents. The act/omission of the respondents to release 12.58 acres of the petitioner's land from land acquisition is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ; (e) The omission to release the said chunk of land is on account of the malafide action of Shri Jagmohan, who had hostile attitude towards the petitioners while dealing with the petitioner's land in his capacity as the Secretary, Land & Dev. Delhi Admn., Vice-Chairman, D.D.A., and the Lt. Gov. of Delhi; (f) Admittedly, the land was acquired by the Delhi Admn. under instructions from the Govt. under the Land Acqs. Act. As the land in question did not belong to the Central Govt./Delhi Admn. it could not have been entrusted to the D.D.A. u/s 22 of the D.D. Act. Even under the Delhi Dev. Act the lay out plans which are approved under the 1955 Act are saved from fresh approval by the D.D.A. u/s 60(2)(b) of the Delhi Development Act & (g) After the announcement of the decision by the Minister in the Parliament, a number of transaction had taken place with individual plot holders and large amount had been invested on the development work of the colony. The principle of promissory estoppel will debar the respondents from going back on the decision announced by the Minister in Parliament.

(11) The claim of the petitioners is principally contested by the D.D.A. as substantive counter-affidavit and additional affidavits (Along with the documents) were filed by the D.D.A. This is perhaps because the land was purported to be transferred to the D.D.A. u/s 22 of the D.D. Act and is in possession of the D.D.A. The submissions of Dr. Singhvi on behalf of the D.D.A. are (h) That the writ petition was not maintainable on the application of the principle of res judicata, since the petitioners had earlier filed suit No. 95/81 and withdrawn the same ; (i) The petitioners have already withdrawn the compensation in regard to the land in question in an Award made by Shri H.C.Goel, Adj on 21.2.1974. This fact is suppressed by the petitioners ; (j) The petitioners have not produced any evidence to show their title to the disputed land. They cannot ask for a declaration of their title through the writ petition ; (1) The statement of the Minister dated 10.3.60 in Parliament is not a decision of the Govt. u/Art. 77 of the Constitution of India. The statement cannot take the place of a Govt. order duly authenticated and published according to contitutional requirements. Petitioners have failed to establish the truth or correctness of the said statement of the Minister as required by S. 37 of the Evidence Act ; (m) On true and proper construction of the said statement of the Minister, only the land meant for residential purposes was to be released and not the land meant for commercial purposes. The petitioner cannot make a grievance of the discretion validly exercised by the U.O.I./ Delhi Adm. for not Realizing the land in question in favor of the petitioners ; (n) The approved lay out plan by the D.D.P.A. was only for 20 acres and not for 32.58 acres. The petitioners cannot claim release of land from acquisition in excess of 20 acres ; (o) The notification of Delhi Adm. dated 1.7.1960 to release only 20 acres of petitioner's land is final and binding on the petitioners. The Court has no power to re-write the said notification so as to read the release of 32.58 acres. The petitioners cannot challenge it belatedly in 1981 ; (p) Petitioners can make no claim of land against the D.D.A. to whom the land is validly entrusted by the Delhi Adm. for the purposes of development and the possession of which is taken by the D.D.A. ; (q) The land is acquired by the Central Govt. under the Land Acq. Act and there is no prayer in the writ petition to quash the land acq. proceedings.

(12) Apart from submissions, counsel for the parties have elaborated their arguments by minor submissions at the time of arguments. Both the counsels for the petitioners and respondents had travelled little beyond their respective pleadings in the oral arguments and and the written submissions. In a way it was inevitable because even the D.D.A. did not have the material documents and the production and inspection of files continued almost till the completion of arguments. Both sides were given full opportunity to present their respective cases by reducing the element of surprise to its minimum. [The Judgment then notes six documents [(a) Ddpa resolution no. 57 of 9.3.57 ; (b) Parliament debate dt. 10.3.60; (c) Report of Bose Malik, Vice-Chairman, D.D.A. dt. 23.5.70 ; (d) Govt. reply in Parliament to question in dispute dt. 24.8.75 ; (e) Decisions of Ministers M/s Sikander Bakht & P.C. Sethi dt. 7.6.79 and 9.4.80; (f) Letter containing decision of Lt. Governor dt. 25.10.80]. The Judgment then discusses arguments of parties under the following heads : (g) Govt's decision to release land from acquisition (h) Authentication and communication of of order to release land of many colonies ; (i) Delegation of power to Delhi Adm. to acquire land does not mean that Central Govt. retained no control; (j) How much is the land. in dispute : (k) whether commercial area in the petitioners lay-out plan was not to be released. The affidavit of the secretary of the D.D.A. in this respect was found to be untruthful and was rejected; (1) Effect, if any on petitioners rights of entrustment of disputed land to D.D.A. inl968&1974; (m) Effect of notification u/s 48(1) dt. 1.7.60, releasing only 20 acres on petitioners grievance of mistake about area ; (n) Title to the disputed land ; (o) Petitioners taking part in Acquisition proceeding under protest ; (p) writ petition is not barred by rule of res judicator After detailing above, the Court concluded thus : Final summation: The respondents have failed to prove that the petitions are barred by the principles of res judicate. They can neither be opposed on the ground that, they raise disputed questions of fact. The evidence in this case is entirely a documentary evidence available on the files of the Govt., Delhi Adm , M.C.D. and the D.D.A. The parties were given full opportunity for inspection of documents and they have availed of in full measure. The completion of land acquisition proceedings do not come in the way of the petitioners as they had joined the proceedings without prejudice and had not accepted the compensation. They are void & north-east Entrustment of land in dispute to the D.D.A. u/s 22 of the D.D. Act also does not stand in the way of granting relief to the petitioners as the Union of India could not have in law entrusted the property/land of the petitioners to the D.D.A. The notification of the Delhi Adm. dated 1.7.1960 u/s 48 of the Land Acq. Act only partially implements the decision of the Govt. of India, and the petitioners are entitled to a direction for the release of additional 8.4 acres of land. The decision of the Govt. of India announced by the Minister in Parliament on 10.3.1960 cannot be faulted by the D.D.A. for non-compliance of Article 77 of the Constitution when the Govt. of India have not themselves disowned it or denounced it. So also, the D.D.A. is not entitled to restrict the scope of the said statement of the Minister only to lands meant for residential use and for excluding the lands for commercial use from its purview. The Government of India has not filed any affidavit claiming such a restricted interpretation, nor the evidence in regard to other colonies supports such an interpretation. On the true construction of the said statement of the Minister in its historical setting and subsequent actions in regard to the other colonies similarly situated, the decision of the Govt. of India to release the land from acquisition was applicable to land meant for commercial use also. To single out the petitioners for different treatment from the other 20 colonies mentioned in the said statement of the Minister would be arbitrary and discriminatory and would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. On the consideration of the entire evidence on record I hold that the petitioners' land, according to the sanctioned plans, was 28.4 acres and not as claimed either by the petitioners or by the respondents. For the reasons stated above the respondents are directed to release 8.4 acres land to the petitioners and are restrained from disturbing the possession and the enjoyment of the said land by the petitioners. W.P. are allowed with cost. Original documents filed by parties be returned to them against proper receipt.