Avtar Singh vs Union Of India And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 208 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhva, J.

(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10 October 1978 of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. In the writ petition the appellant had prayed for quashing of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') as well as for quashing the award dated 27 July 1973 made under Section Ii of the Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground that Section 48 of the Act provided the only way by which the Government could withdraw from acquisition of any land.

(2) Fact are in brief. The appellant purchased a plot of land measuring about 1200 square yards in Village Taimur Nagar by a sale deed dated 13 February 1958. The land bears khasra No. 809/1/1. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by Delhi Administration on 13 November 1959 respecting land measuring 34070 acres all over Delhi. This included the land of the petitioner as well. Then a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on I January 1969. The notification and the declaration had been issued by the Land and Building Department of the Delhi Administration. As noted above, the award was made on 27 July 1973. It is mentioned in the award that the appellant did appear and sought adjournment and then the appellant filed an application staling that the land be released from acquisition. He, however, did not file any claim for compensation.

(3) In the meanwhile, the appellant had approached the authorities for permission to build on the land in question. Various correspondence has been brought on record. 1 In one letter dated 26 November 1966 the Delhi Development Authority informed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi that the land in question had been adjusted in the modified redevelopment plan of the village and that the building plan in respect of the subject land might, therefore, be examined in accordance with the redevelopment plan of the village. Then there is a letter dated 7 June 1967 from the Secretary (Land & Building), Delhi Administration, to the appellant slating that the approval of the Government of India to the execution of the village redevelopment scheme was awaited and as soon as the approval was received, further action in the matter would be taken. On 16 November 1968 Secretary (Land & Building) Delhi Administration, wrote a letter to the Delhi Development Authority which is as under: "SUBJECT:Issue of No Objection Certificate. Sir, I am directed to say that the question pertaining to the issue of No Objection Certificate in the areas for which the redevelopment plans have been prepared by the Delhi Development Authority was discussed in a meeting held by the Secretary (L&B), in his office on 7th November, 1968 and it was made clear that the Land and Housing Department has no objection in issuing such a certificate with the point of view of acquisition. However, before the building plans are sanctioned, the following precautions need be taken: (a) Development charges in full are recovered in advance, and (b) The plot for which the 'No Objection Certificate' is obtained, is purchased before the date of notification for the general planned development scheme of Delhi. Yours faithfully, sd/- (R.S.Mathur) for Secretary-(Land and Building) Delhi Administration."

(4) Again a letter dated I February 1969 was addressed by the Secretary (Land & Building), Delhi Administration, to the Delhi Development Authority, and it is as under: "SUBJECT:Issue of a No Objection Certification in respect of Khasra No. 809, Village Taimur Nagar. Sir, I am directed to send herewith a copy of application dated Nil from Shri Avtar Singh C/o New Light Tailoring House, Nal Sarak, Delhi, on the above subject, and to say that this Administration has no objection to allowing building activities on the plot under reference from the acquisition point of view if it is covered by development plan of village Taimur Nagar Subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: (a) Development charges in full are recovered in advance, and (b) The applicant purchased the plot before the date of general notification issued on 13.11.1959 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Yours faithfully, sd/- (R.S. Mathur) Assistant Housing Commissioner (1) for Secretary (Land and Building) Delhi Administration, Delhi." A copy of this letter was also forwarded to the appellant.

(5) On the basis of these letters the building plans of the appellant were passed by the Delhi Development Authority. We are told that the appellant has since built a building on the land in question.

(6) It is not disputed before us that all the queries raised in the two letters set out above stand fulfillled. As a matter of fact, in the counter-affidavit filed by Delhi Administration its stand was as under: "......IT is submitted that because the area in question was declared as a development area, and the competent authority to take appropriate action in the matter regarding permission to allow building activities was Delhi Development Authority. The Delhi Development Authority was informed that Delhi Administration has no objection to issue "No Objection Certificate' for the land in dispute which have been declared a development area subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, in case the Delhi Development Authority do not require the land for any public purpose for which development plan had been prepared by the Delhi Development Authority itself. In view of the above submissions, it is clear that the appropriate authority was Delhi Development Authority who had to decide as to for which use the land in question is to be put after finalization of the acquisition proceedings. The issue of the above letter does not mean that the land dispute has been denotified or released."

(7) In The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma & Ors. , the Supreme Court negative the argument that Section 48 of the Act was the only provision in the Act which dealt with withdrawal from acquisition and that was the only way in which the Government could withdraw from the acquisition and unless action was taken under section 48(1), the notification under Section 4(1) would remain (presumably for ever). Section 48(1) of the Act is as under; "48,(L)Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has 144 not been taken. (2) Xx Xx Xx Xx (3) Xx Xx Xx Xx

(8) That being the state of law and The Delhi Administration itself having issued no objection for construction of the building on. the suit land and the Delhi Development Authority having passed the plans of the building and building having been constructed thereon, we do not see how it can be said that the Government did not withdraw from the acquisition. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, with the consequent result the writ petition is also allowed. Notifications dated 13 November 1959 and I January 1969 in respect of the suit land are quashed, and so also the award dated 27 July 1973. As the respondent is unrepresented, there will be no order as to costs.