Anand Prakash Singal And 3 Ors. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1117 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The petitioners allege that they own lands which fall within Khasra Nos. 71/1 (4-04), 71/2(4-04), 71/3(4-04),71/4/1 (1-17), 71/7/2 (2-02), 71/8(4-16), 71/9 (4-16), 71/10 (4-10), 71/11 (4-16), 72/5 (4-08)m 72/6 (4-10) situated in Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi. The petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the quashing of the Notification dated 17.12.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, bearing . F.27(35)/98/LandB/LA/15548 and the declaration dated 11.12.2003 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of the said notification and declaration and for calling for the reasons and nothings leading to five shiftings of the proposed site for acquisition which was initially located at Village Mundka and ultimately shifted to the one indicated in the said Notification and declaration in Village Tikri Kalan. The petitioners have also prayed for orders restraining the respondents from dispossessing them from the land indicated above.

2. The impugned Notification under Section 4 which was issued on 17.12.2002 indicates that land was likely to be required to be taken by the Government at public expense for a public purpose namely for 400/220KV Grid Sub-station at Village Tikri Kalan.

The lands of the petitioners were included in the lands proposed to be acquired. Thereafter, on 11.12.2003 the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 was also notified. The lands specified in the said Declaration included those of the petitioners.

3. The main plank on which the petitioners rest their case is that the Grid Sub-station was initially proposed to be set up at Village Mundka and through a colourable exercise of power by the respondents, the site was shifted five times and finally to the area which came to be notified under the impugned Notification. The grievance of the petitioners is that though it was originally proposed that the Grid Sub-station would be set up at Village Mundka, the said Sub-station finally was decided to be set up at Village Tikri Kalan which would result in the petitioners' lands being acquired though that was not the original proposal.

4. Mr Ravi Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners took us through various documents and maps to impress upon us the fact that the proposed site for the said Grid Sub-station was originally contemplated at Village Mundka and, thereafter, shifted on some pretext or the other to other places and finally to the location notified in the said Notification. There were some allegations made on behalf of the petitioners that the shifting of the site was done at the behest of some interested parties though no particulars were given therefore. Mr Ravi Gupta referred to the letter dated 16th September, 1992 (Annexure A) to show that the requirement of land was at the location mentioned in the enclosed Plan which was situated in Village Mundka. He then referred to the letter dated 22nd March, 1993 (Annexure C) to indicate that the request then was for land of Vilage Gheora and Hiran Kudna. He further referred to the letter dated 15th March, 1995 and the enclosed Plan (Annexure F) and letter dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure G) to show that the location was again changed and also to indicate that the area of the required land was also increased from the originally proposed 500X500 meters to the present requirement of 750X500 meters. From the documents annexed at Annexure 'H', the learned counsel inferred that this site was approved. However, the matter was not to rest here and as indicated by the letter dated 28th September, 1995 (Annexure I) the location was again revised as per the drawing enclosed. O 3rd November, 1995 (Annexure J) a new location was suggested and a request was made for the same to be referred to the Technical Committee and for expediting the approval.

5. Thereafter, the 53rd Technical Committee, chaired by the Vice-Chairman DDA, met on 21.11.1995 at 10 a.m. in the Conference Room of Vikas Minar, 5th Floor, DDA, New Delhi and, inter alia, approved the proposed location. Since there was a suggestion of the change in the land use, as indicated in the minutes of the meeting, a public notice was taken out on 14.8.1997 for any objections to the change in the land use. Item No. 3 of the proposed Notification read as under:-

"...iii) The land use of an area, measuring about 37.5 ha (92.62 acres) falling in the revenue estate of Mundka village, (West Delhi), bounded by Rohtak Road (N.H.-10) in the North, village Road/rural area in the East, and Rural Area in the South and West, is proposed to be changed from `rural use zone' to `utilities' (400/220 KV Sub-Station)."

The gist of objections/suggestions received in response to the public notice was as under:-

"1. A LPG Bottling Plant of Indian Oil Corporation is existing just opposite the Electric Sub Station site. Due to close proximity and risk of explosive hazard the proposed site needs to be shifted further away in the southern direction.

2. A few yards away from the proposed ESS site, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose delivered his last speech. The said spot is being developed by Delhi Tourism, Deptt., GNCTD. The existing green look by the proposed ESS would provide unpleasant surrounding.

3. A Sanskrit Vidyalaya is functioning within the proposed site since 1990 in an area of 20,000 sq. yards. This would require shifting/closure.

4. A vast open land vacant land is existing just behind the proposed site, vacated due to the closing of the brick kilns. Possibility/feasibility for the alternative location be explored by DVB, as shown in the map. (enclosed)."

6. The respondent No. 5 in response to the objections examined the same and by a letter dated 9.1.1998 addressed to the Delhi Development Authority clarified its position thereon as under:-

"The objections referred to above have been examined at our end and the position is as under:-

1. The LPG bottling plant of Indian Oil Corporation is located far away from the proposed grid s/stn. Site on the other side of Rohtak Road. As such the same cannot be any hindrance to the work of the concerned agency.

2. As may be seen from the map forwarded with your letter the spot where Netaji Subhash Cjhander Bose delivered his last speech is also located on the other side of Rohtak Road adjoining the LPG bottling plant of IOC. Thus, it is far away from our proposed s/stn site.

3. As confirmed by the Patwari of the area, the so called Sanskrit Vidalaya having a raw constructing rooms is an unauthorised construction located in the plot of the land for the proposed s/stn.

4. Regarding the alternative s/stn. site as shown in the map referred to above, it would be seen that the road leading to village Nilwal would cut across one corner of the proposed s/stn. site and thus the required size of land for the s/stn. would not be available at the alternative location. However, since the site for the s/stn. Was approved by Delhi Development Authority, it is for DDA to take a view of the alternative location, taking into consideration the fact that the proposed 480/220 KV s/st., which is very urgently required for meeting the growing power requirements of west area of West Delhi, has already been considerably delayed due to non-availability of land for the same.

5. An immediate confirmation in the matter is requested so that we may proceed further in the matter accordingly."

Subsequently, the proposed alternative site was approved which was the final site which was notified under the impugned Notification. This is the backdrop of the changes in the location of the proposed Grid Sub-station.

7. As mentioned above, the petitioners allege that these changes were brought about due to some vested interests and in order to accommodate certain interested persons. This, according to the petitioners, amounts to a colourable exercise of power on the part of the respondents and, therefore, the petitioners contend that the said Notifications ought to be struck down. As already indicated above, no particulars have been given as to who the interested persons were at whose behest, allegedly, the location of the Grid Sub-station was shifted from time to time and ultimately to the location notified under the impugned Notification. The allegations are vague and bereft of any material particulars.

8. In the affidavit of one Shri Ved Mitra, Deputy General Manager (Planning), Delhi Trans Company Ltd. filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, details of the entire project and the reasons for the shifting of the sites and indicated. Paragraphs 15 and

16 of the said affidavit are material and are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"15. That vide letter dated 02/6.04.1998, the agenda of the 87th technical committee meeting to be held on 07.04.1998 was circulated including comments of DVB. One of the factors to be considered as per the agenda was that as per orders of Supreme Court of India the non-conforming industries located in Delhi are to be relocated and for this purpose two sites were broadly identified i.e. Bawana and Narela up to GT road and land adjoining PVC market at Tikri Kalan and therefore the 400 KV site would have to be located in relation to industrial area to be developed by DSIDC adjoining PVC market because the major power share would be taken by these industries. Copy of the notice dated 02/6/04.1998 and relevant agenda is Annexure 'Q'. In view of the objections and the order of the Supreme Court, the case was placed before the technical committee for considering whether to continue with the original site along NH 10 or to switch over to the alternative site or a new site with reference to the industrial state being developed adjoining PVC market at Tikri Kalan.

16. That after examining the objections/suggestions, the 87th Technical Committee DDA recommended the proposed alternate site for 400/220 KV Grid S/Stn. With the following observation vide its item No. 24/98 on 07.04.1998.

(i) As per the provision of MPD-2001 utilities are permitted in all use-zones, hence change of land used not to be processed.

(ii) Acquisition of land may be done directly by DVB.

(iii) The proposal will require clearances of concerned bodies including NCRPD.

The erstwhile DVB was informed of the same vide letter dated 25.06.1998 of the Jt. Director (MP) DDA. Copy of the said letter and enclosure is Annexure 'R'."

9. Our attention was also drawn, in this context to the minutes of the meeting of the 87th Technical Committee held on 7.4.1998, a copy whereof was placed at Annexure 'H' of the present file. One of the items in the said meeting was with regard to the change of land use in respect of 400/220 KV Grid Sub-station in Vilage Mundka, Rohtak Road, West Delhi. It was stated in the meeting that as suggested by the earlier Technical Committee held on 21.11.1995. Objections were invited for change of land use and upon examining the objections/suggestions, it was observed that some of the objections/suggestions concerned the fire and Explosive Department, Delhi Tourism Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., Education Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Vidyut Board. Therefore, the matter was referred to the said four departments along with the Plan showing the alternative sites just behind the proposed site for their observations. Delhi Tourism Transport Development Corporation Ltd. observed that the Corporation had no objection for setting up of the said Electric Sub-station at the suggested alternative site provided the high tension line did not pass above the Netaji Samarak at Tikri Kalan. The Chief Fire Officer observed that from fire point of view the earlier proposed site along NH-10 is not suitable and they agreed for the alternative site. The Delhi Vidyut Board stated that the LPG Bottling Plant of Indian Oil Corporation is located far away from the proposed sub station site and on the other side of the road, as such the same cannot be an hindrance to the work of the concerned agency. It was also noted that Netaji Samarak is located on the other side of Rohtak Road adjoining the LPG bottling plant of Indian Oil Corporation and thus, it was far away from the proposed Sub-station site. These are some of the considerations that were looked into before the present site for the Grid Sub-station was selected.

10. We have examined the correspondence in detail and have also gone through the affidavits filed by the respondents as also the extracts of the Minutes of the Technical Committee Meetings. On the basis of the available record, the allegations of the petitioners that the location of the site was shifted at the behest of some interested persons is not at all borne out. On the contrary, we note that there was a reasonable basis for the change in the location and it is only after detailed inquiry and discussions that the present site was ultimately selected. As long as there is some reasonable basis for the change in location and the selection of the alternative site, this Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with such a decision. Judicial review under Article 226 requires the Court to examine the decision making process and not to be concerned with the decision in itself. This Court is not equipped to go into technical considerations nor does it have the expertise to decide as to whether one or the other location is appropriate or inappropriate. All that the Court has to do in such a matter is to satisfy itself that the decision making process has been fair and reasonable. We find that the decision making process does not suffer from any arbitrariness and there exists reasonable basis for the selection of the present location.

11. The scope of judicial review has been succintly stated in contradistinction to that of an appeal in Wade and Forsyth's Administrative Law (8th Edition) as under at page 33:-

"The system of judicial review is radically different from the system of appeals. When hearing an appeal the court is concerned with the merits of a decision: is it correct? When subjecting some administrative act or order to judicial review, the court is concerned with its legality: is it within the limits of the powers granted? On an appeal the question is `right or wrong?' On review the question is `lawful or unlawful?"

We are not inclined to interfere in this matter as in our view the decision for selecting the present location is `lawful'. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.