Gaon Sudhar Samiti vs Union Of India
1997 Latest Caselaw 500 Del

JUDGMENT

K.S. Gupta, J.

(1) The petitioners are the permanent residents of village Khureji Khas since the birth. It is alleged by them that in 1970 an award was made in respect to land measuring 23 Bighas and 14 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 37/3,4,7,8 and 14 situated in village Khureji Khas but the same was quashed by an order dated December 15,1982 (Annexure A) by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1167/81. It is alleged that a scheme was framed on April 6, 1954 by the Mushawarti Committee in consultation with the Revenue Authorities and the villagers in terms, whereof aforesaid land was kept reserved for being used for welfare purposes like running of school, hospital or Panchayat Ghar. However, contrary to the scheme respondents I and 2, who are not the owners, have allotted the aforementioned land .to respondent No. 3 for running petrol pump. It is prayed on this writ petition that by issue of writ of mandamus respondents I and 2 be directed to stop the allotment of land in question to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 be restrained from construction of petrol pump thereon.

(2) In response to the show-cause notice DDA-respondent No. 2 filed its reply on the affidavit of V.K. Singhal, Director (CM). It is stated that after acquisition of the land in question under the provision of Land Acquisition Act physical possession thereof was taken over on March 16, 1984. Land was thereafter placed at the disposal of respondent No. 2 underSection22(l) of the Delhi Development Act vide Notification No. F-8(45)/77/L & B dated March 30,1984. Order passed in Cwp No. 1167/81 was restricted to the interest of the petitioners in that writ petition. It is emphatically denied that the award in regard to the land in question was quashed in C.W.P. No. 1167/81 as alleged. It is further alleged that the allotment of land for running petrol pump would come within the parameters of public welfare and, therefore, the allotment of land to Mohan Singh Bammi as licensee of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation-respondent No. 3 is not bad in the eye of law.

(3) In the reply filed on the affidavit of Saeed Hydrie, Chief Regional Manager, respondent No. 3 has alleged that the land in question was allotted to respondent No. 3 for running petrol pump by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated July 28, 1994 (Annexure R1). By a subsequent letter dated September 22, 1994 (Annexure R2) terms and conditions on which the allotment was made were communicated by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 By yet another letter dated October 17,1994 (Annexure R3) respondent No. 2 informed respondent No. 3 that the site was ready for ^handing over. After taking physical possession the land in question has been given on licence basis to Mohan Singh Bammi for running petrol pump by respondent No. 3.

(4) We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and been taken through the entire record.

(5) In short, points which arise for determination in this petition are: (1) if the acquisition of the land in question by Union of India, respondent No. 1 was quashed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1167/81: and (2) what is the effect of the alleged scheme of 1954 on allotment of land in question by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 as site for running petrol pump.

(6) It is admitted by the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 that the land in question was acquired by respondent No. 1 for planned development of Delhi. Petitioners case, however, is that the acquisition of the land was quashed in C.W.P. No. 1167/81 by this Court. On the contrary, according to respondent No. 2 acquisition of the land in question was not quashed and the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition was restricted only to the interest of the petitioners in that writ petition. Alongwith the petition copy of the order dated December 15,1982 in aforesaid C.W.P. No. 1167/81 has been filed as Annexure A and a bare reading there of goes to show that award being No. 22/70-71 dated July 29, 1970 and supplementary award dated October 19,1970were quashed insofar as they related to the claim of the petitioners in that petition. Obviously this order belies the stand taken by the petitioners that the award with respect to the land in question was also quashed in afore mentioned C.W.P. No. 1167/81.

(7) This brings us to point No. 2, referred to above. In support of the contention that the land in question was earmarked only for public welfare purposes in the scheme, which was framed and announced on April 6, 1954 by Mushawarti Committee in consultation with the Revenue Authorities and the villagers, our attention was drawn by Mr. V. Shekhar appearing for the petitioners to the extract of Jamabandi of village Khureji Khas for the year 1987-88 (Annexure B). It relates to land in question and against column No. 5 thereof pertaining to name of cultivator and address, it is recorded thus: "REFAIAM Barai School Va Aspatal Munderja Khatauni Aj Mal ARAJEE"

(8) It may be noted that replies filed by both respondents 2 and 3 are conspicuously silent in regard to the aforesaid scheme of 1954. Uncontroverted allegations made in the petition coupled with the extract of Jamabandi (Annexure B) clearly point out that a .scheme was framed and announced on April 6, 1954 by Mushawarti Committee in consultation with the Revenue Authorities and the villagers according to which land in question was reserved for use i.e. for public welfare purposes like running of school, hospital or Panchayat Ghar etc. Indisputably land in question is being used presently for running petrol pump by one Mohan Singh Bammi as licensee under respondent No. 3.

(9) Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, envisages that the acquired land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances after an award is made and possession thereof is taken by the Collector. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid scheme of 1954 under which the use of the land in question was restricted only to welfare purposes was not made under any Act either made by the Parliament or the then Legislative Assembly of the State of Delhi. Scheme of 1954 was thus non-statutory in nature. In any case on March 16,1984, when possession of the land was taken over by the Collector, Land Acquisition, as is reflected in the remarks column of copy of the Jamabandi, Annexure 'B' the land stood vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances Scheme, in case it be termed as an encumbrance thus has no effect and the State Government was free to utilise the land in any manner whatsoever. That be so, respondent No. 2, at whose disposal the land in question was placed under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act by respondent No. 1, was not bound by the aforementioned scheme and was competent to allot it even for a purpose other than for running school, hospital or Panchayat Ghar etc. Decision in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & Others, , is not applicable to the facts of the case as in that case space allotted to a private body for the purpose of constructing a hospital was reserved for a park in accordance with a formally approved and published development scheme in terms of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Thus, neither the allotment of the land in question in favour of respondent No. 3 can be quashed, nor can it be restrained from permitting its use for running petrol pump.

(10) Petition being without merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.