Scindia Potteries And Services ... vs Land Acquisition Collector (Mw) ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 794 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Babri, J.

(1) We had heard arguments in order to decide whether rule nisi be issued in this writ petition or not. A show-cause notice was issued to respondents and counter affidavits and the Rajenders have been filed. There is an application filed by Scindia Investment Pvt. Ltd. for being joined as a party in the case but it is not necessary to allow the said application. We have heard the arguments and find there is no merit in this writ petition.

(2) A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land in question was issued on June 3, 1988 and a declaration under Section 6 was issued on September 6, 1988. After following the other procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, an award dated September 4. 1990 was made and announced. It Is evident that if date of pronouncement of award is September 4, 1990, then the same having been made within two years, as required by Section 11A of the Act is within time. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. P.N. Lekhi, Advocate has challenged the aforesaid award on two grounds, firstly that no previous approval of the appropriate Government had been obtained before pronouncement of the award and thus, the award is vitiated on that score and secondly, that the authority who had granted the alleged previous approval of the award was not a competent authority 79 in as much as the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi was not authorised to nominate the said officer. Secretary (Revenue) to grant previous approval to the award.

(3) Coming to the first point, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the award itself particularly (he last page of the award. Just before the signatures of the Land Acquisition Collector, the following sentence appears : "D.C. in his capacity is Secretary (Reverue) is required to kindly approve the above award".

(4) The Land Acquisition Collector has put not date September 4, 1990 under his signatures and Secretary (Revenue) had approved the award but had not given any date under his signatures. The award was announced in the presence of the parties. This is also indicated on the last page. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in fact, the Secretary (Revenue) had appended his signatures after the award had been prepared and announced. At any rate, he has alleged that there is nothing to show any movement of this file of land acquisition from the office of the Collector to the office of the Secretary (Revenue) prior to September 4, 1990 to show that previous approval was granted before announcement of the award.

(5) Mr. Tulsi, Counsel appearing for Union of India, had, on our directions, brought the original record which had been perused by us. The original record shows that a comprehensive not with regard to getting the prior approval of Secretary (Revenue) was prepared and was signed by Land Acquisition Collector on August 28th, 1990 and it was sent toA.D.M.(LA) on that very day who had marked the same to the Secretary (Revenue) and in this note, it was mentioned that "D.C. in his capacity as Secretary (Revenue) is required to kindly approve the award" and then the note bears signatures of Secretary (Revenue) and on the margin of the second page of this note, there appears a No. 1047/ADM/LAC and is dated August 28, 1990. Mr. Tulsi has also drawn our attention to the entry in the daily diary maintained in the Office ofA.D.M.(LA)andthe entry 1047 appears in this registered under the date, August 29, 1990 which is to the following effect :- "Acquisition of land at Kusumpura for P.D.D." The words "P.D.D." mean the Planned Development of Delhi. The learned Counsel has argued that it is evident from the perusal of the original record produced before this Court that previous approval had been granted by Secretary (Revenue) either on August 29, 1990 or on August 29. 1990 and while signing the approval on the original award, the Secretary (Revenue), due to inadvertence, failed to put a date of his having given an approval but ha has pointed out that the original record makes it very clear that approval had been given much before September 4. 1990 He has pointed out the original award was typed and was not signed by the Land Acquisition Collector and was sent Along with the file to Secretary (Revenue), who not only signed on the noting part but also signed on the original award as a token of his giving the prior approval, and on September 4 1990, the Land Acquisition Collector signed the award. So, he has urged that the award was signed announced on September 4, 1990 after obtaining the prior approval from the Secretary (Revenue).

(6) We find much force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for Union of India. It is not possible to countenance the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that any document has been forged. After 80 all, the entry in the daily diary could not have been forged because there upper entries of the same date prior to this entry and there appear a number of subsequent entries of subsequent dates of August 50 and 31, which are the dates prior to September 4, 1990. So, the bare look at the register shows that there is no room for any doubt that this entry No. 1047 had been made in routine and had not been inserted later on. Mere fact that there has been no dispatch entry in the dispatch register would not go to throw any suspicion that the file had not reached the Secretary (Revenue) in routine for getting his prior approval,

(7) It is significant to mention that the award was announced in the presence of the Counsel for the petitioner on September 4, 1990 and in case there had been no signatures of the appropriate authority granting prior approval to the announcement of the award, the Counsel for the petitioner would not have remained silent Rather, it is significant to mention that an application was moved by the petitioner for getting the certified copy of the award on that very date and the certified copy of the award was given to the petitioner on September, 6, 1990. So, it cannot be said from the facts appearing from the original record that the Secretary (Revenue) had not granted the approval to the award prior to the award being pronounced on September 4, 1999. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment given in Civil Writ Petition No. 3408/1982, Dr. Angela Fernandes v. U.O.l. decided on September 4, 1990 by a Single Judge of this Court where the Court came to the conclusion that perhaps in that case prior approval had not been obtained before the announcement of the award. We have gone through the judgment and find that, unfortunately for Union of India, the original record was not produced before the learned Single Judge in that case which also pertains to a totally different, land and the different proceedings. So, the said judgment could be of no help to the petitioner in showing to this Court that prior approval had not been given before pronouncement of the award in the present case.

(8) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Secretary (Revenue) had no power to grant any such prior approval under Section 11 of the Act. It is now settled law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in 0m Prakash v. Union of India, , that Lt. Governor of Delhi is the appropriate government for issuing the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and is the Central Government for the purpose of Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, has contended that under Article 239 of the Constitution, the President is to administer the Union Territory of Delhi and he should administer the same through an administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. The Gazette Notification had been issued dated September 7, 1966 under which the President, by exorcising the powers conferred in him under Article 239 of the Constitution and Section 29 of the Delhi Administration Act 1966 had made the rules which are termed as Delhi Administration Allocation Rules, 1966. Rule 3 lays down that the entire business of Delhi Administration shall be transacted in the Departments and offices which are specified in the Schedule and the work shall be classified and distributed among its departments and offices, as laid down the rein provided that Administrator may, from time to time, make such addition to or modification in the list of business allotted to a department as he thinks fit. Section 11(1) proviso of the Land Acquisition Act lays down that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-Section without the previous approval of the appropriate government or of such officer as the appropriate government may authorizes in this behalf. A notification dated November 20, 1984 had been issued and published in the Delhi Gazette which provides that in exercise of the powers 81 conferred under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 amending Section 11 of the principal Act, the Lt. Governor is pleased to authorise Revenue Secretary, Delhi Administration, Delhi to approve the award drawn by the Collector under Section 11 of the Principal Act.

(9) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Lt. Governor could not, vide this notification supersede the Rules mentioned above framed under Article 239 of the Constitution by the President and thus, the Secretary (Revenue) had no authority to grant any approval. There is no merit In this contention. Even Rule 3 quoted above framed by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution gives the power to the Administrator to make such additions, modifications from time to time as he thinks fit in the list of business allotted to different departments. So, mere fact that in the Schedule attached to the Delhi Administration Allocation Rules 1966, the work of the Land Acquisition is allocated to Land and Building Department and not to the Revenue Department would not mean that the Administrator could not, while exercising his power under Section 11(1) proviso and the power given under Rule 3 of these Rules, nominate Secretary (Rvenue) for giving the prior approval to the awards to be made under the Land Acquisition Act. There is no provision in the said Delhi Administration Allocation of Rules which disables the administrator to exercise his discretion and the powers of making such allocation as he thinks fit. So, we hold that Secretary (Revenue) was competent to grant the previous approval to this award.

(10) A half-hearted contention was also raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as reference had not been made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was contemplated in the award itself, within six months, so the whole proceedings stand vitiated. There is no merit in this contention as well because it is settled by the Supreme Court in Dr. Gol Grant v. State of Bihar, making it clear that for a reference under Section 30, no prior of limitation is prescribed.

(11) The learned Counsel for the petitioner also sought to argue that the object of Planned Development of Delhi is a vague object and the land should not have been acquired on the basis of the said object. He made reference to State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohd. Yousef, . We have gone through this judgment and find that It is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is now settled law that planned development of Delhi, which is based on the Master Plan already enforced is not a vague object. (See Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, ; Raj Kumar v. Union of India, ; Delhi Administration v. Friends Housing Society, A.1.R. 1991 Delhi 30). It was also urged by the learned Counsel 'for the petitioner that the funds for acquisition of the land in question were not available and he made reference to certain inter-departmental letters showing that even after the award had been announced, the allocation of the funds was being sought. It is to be emphasised that in the Writ petition, no such plea has been taken that the necessary funds were not available with the Delhi Administration for acquiring the land in question. Mere fact that there has been some inter-departmental communications does not mean that funds with Delhi Administration were not available. It may be that Land Acquisition Collector was asking the other departments of Delhi Administration allocate the funds to the Land Acquisition Collector for acquiring the land in question but that does not mean that the funds were not available with the Delhi Administration for acquiring the land in question. If proper plea had been raised in the writ petition, the Union of India could have met the said plea by giving some details as to availability of the funds. 82

(12) We have called certain other files of Land Acquisition but it is not necessary to take into consideration those files.

(13) We dismiss the Writ petition.