Delhi High Court
Gig Raj Patodia, Son Of Jia Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through ... on 3 March, 2005
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: S Kumar, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. This batch of 11 writ petitions was heard contemporaneously with WP (C) No. 1953 of 1997 (Vasant Kunj Enclave Housing Welfare Society and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.).
2. This writ petition was taken as a lead case because an additional argument had been raised in this matter, which we propose to deal with.
3. The challenge in the batch of 11 writ petitions is to a Notification bearing No. F.9(12)/95/LandB/LA/9739 dated 27th June, 1996 issued under the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) in respect of land measuring 130 bighas and 15 biswas in village Rangpuri, also known as Malikpur Kohi. This land was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, construction of staff quarters for Government of NCT of Delhi under the planne development of Delhi. Thereafter, a declaration bearing No. F.9(12)/95/L and B/LA/1095 was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 3rd March, 1997. The Petitioner is aggrieved by both these Notifications.
4. Earlier, the land of the Petitioner was sought to be acquired by a Notification dated 1st June, 1995 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, but this Notification was allowed to lapse. It was only subsequently on 27th June, 1996 that a fresh Notification was issued.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the contentions already urged in WP (C) No. 1953 of 1997 (Vasant Kunj Enclave Housing Welfare Society and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.) particularly with regard to invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act. We have dealt with this issue extensively in WP (C) No. 1953 of 1997. Unfortunately, there is a difference of opinion expressed in WP (C) No. 1953 of 1997. Since the official file of the Government and the nothings contained therein dealing with the Notifications impugned in this writ petition as well as WP (C) No. 1953 of 1997 is one and the same, we are of the view that this batch of 11 cases should also be referred to a third Judge for adjudication of the same issue that is common to both batch of cases.
6. The second contention urged by learned counsel for the Petitioner was that since proceedings for consolidation of land in village Rangpuri had been ordered on 27th November, 1996 by the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue) under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, steps for acquisition of land under Section 4 and 6 of the Act could not have been taken.
7. We may note that learned counsel for the Petitioner did not cite any judgment in support of his contention and, therefore, we are not prepared to accept his mere ipse dixit in this regard. Moreover, it has been pointed out that a statutory Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27th June, 1996 by the Lt. Governor, well before the order dated 27th November, 1996. This statutory Notification cannot be overridden by an administrative order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue). In any case, it appears to us that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act operate in two different fields; while the former deals with acquisition of land the latter deals with consolidation of land holdings. We have, therefore, no reason to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner in this regard and, therefore, the contention is rejected.
8. On the issue that is common to this case and WP (C) No. 1953 of 1997, it would be appropriate if this batch of cases is referred to a third learned Judge. The papers of this case, therefore, be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriateorders.
