Satlug Bhatta Co. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2006 Latest Caselaw 2002 Del

JUDGMENT

J.P. Singh, J.

1. This Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed on 11.3.1992 directing the respondents to hand over physical possession of land measuring 12 bighas 18 biswas in khasra Nos. 384, 385 and 390 in village Shayurpur to the petitioner company in compliance with the judgment dated 16.05.1989 in the writ petition No. CWP No. 51/1989 titled Balak Ram Gupta v. UOI. An amended writ petition was also filed in which additional prayer was made for issuing writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 25.11.1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and declaration dated 20.5.1985 under Section 6 of the Act as well as the award No. 10/87-88 relating to village Shayurpur.

2. We have heard Mr. N.S. Vashisht, Advocate learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Poddar Advocate learned Counsel for the respondent. By the order dated 12.1.1993 it was clarified in this petition that the case titled Jit Ram v. UOI and Ors. being CWP No. 3611/91 will be the main case because the facts and the prayers were similar. In view of the judgment in Jit Ram's case (supra) the petition has been listed by the office for disposal. We may mention here that vide judgment dated 26.5.2006 in W.P. No. 809/1992 titled Santosh Kumar v. UOI and Ors. the above referred connected CWP No. 3611/1991 titled Jit Ram v. UOI and Ors. has also been dismissed.

3. In the present petition also the prayer is the same i.e., to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 25.11.1980 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 20.5.1985 as also award issued by the Land Acquisition Collector bearing No. 10/87-88 relating to village Shayurpur. The land in question measures 12 bighas 18 biswas in khasra Nos. 384, 385 and 390 and its physical possession is being sought in the present writ petition. In para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India and the Delhi Administration, it is submitted that after taking possession, interests of third parties have come into existence.

4. The facts being similar and in view of the reasoning given by the DB in the connected main case titled Jit Ram v. UOI and Ors. (Supra), we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed with Rs. 20,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Thousand) as cost which be deposited with Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Cell within 8 weeks from today. A copy of the judgment in Jit Ram's case (supra) [Santosh Kumar's case (supra)] be placed in this file.

CM No. 11874 /2006 ( under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC)

5. This order will dispose of an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC moved on behalf of M/s Godfrey Philips praying that its name be substituted as petitioner in place of M/s Satlug Bhatta Company. Present Civil Writ Petition vide order dated 12.1.1993 was tagged with CRP No. 3611/91 titled Jit Ram v. UOI and Ors. which was the lead case in the batch of petitions. Jit Ram's petition stands dismissed with Santosh Kumar's writ petition (supra).

6. Taking advantage of the delay by the office in listing the main writ petition the present application under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC has been moved. It is alleged that vide registered sale deed dated 27.2.1991 the petitioner firm has sold land measuring 12 bighas 18 biswas in village Shayurpur in khasra Nos. 384, 385 and 390 to the applicant M/s Godfrey Philips after taking no objection certificate from the Tehsildar. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant be substituted. As already mentioned above the judgment in the present petition is to follow the judgment in Jit Ram's case (supra), which already stands dismissed in Santosh Kumar case (supra). We have now formally dismissed this petition by passing a short order in view of the detailed reasoning given in Jit Ram's case (Santosh Kumar's case) (Supra).

7. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present application is hit by Section 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restriction of Transfer) Act, 1972 and Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, which forbids such transfer which form the basis of this application.

8. In this context a Division Bench of this Court in case titled Meera Sawhney v. Lt. Governor has held as under:

We are of the view that No objection certificate (NOC) is of no legal consequence. We also hold that no permission under Section 5 of the 1972 Act was ever sought regarding transfer of the land in question nor any permission was granted. The alleged transfer, therefore, is clearly in violation of the provisions of the 1972 Act. It has no legal validity. The Act does not envisage any NOC. Section 5 only recognizes a permission in writing for transfer of lands under Sections 4 and 6 notifications and the permission is to be granted by the Competent Authority under the Act alone. In fact the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that permission was a sine qua non. His entire case, however, was that the alleged NOC amounted to permission under Section 5 of the Act. We are unable to accept this. The onus was clearly on the petitioners to show that they had applied for permission under Section 5 of the 1972 Act. The petitioners have miserably failed to discharge this onus. The very object of the 1972 Act was to curb such illegal transactions of sale and purchase of lands and to protect unwary customers in this behalf. The object of the Act is given in the preamble which runs as under:

An act to impose certain restrictions on transfer of lands which have been acquired by the Central Government or in respect of which acquisition proceedings have been initiated by that Government, with a view to preventing large scale transactions of purported transfers, or, as the case may be, transfers of such lands to unwary public.

9. The transaction of the type involved in the present petition were really intended to be curbed by the Act. Unfortunately the desired result could not be achieved because ways were found to circumvent the provisions of the Act. In view of our finding regarding permission under Section 5 of the Act being not there, the arguments based on permission are not open to the petitioners. Nothing else was urged on behalf of the petitioners. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Since we find that the present is a totally false and frivolous case, we award costs in favor of the respondents. Counsel fee Rs. 5,000/- to each counsel, i.e. counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector and the counsel for the Delhi Development Authority.?

10. In the judgment titled Sneh Prabha and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., the Supreme Court has held as under:

It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired there under. It authorizes the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries etc. Therefore, any alienation of land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights titles and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired there under. If any subsequent purchaser acquires land, his/her only right would be subject to the provisions of the Act and/or to receive compensation for the land.

11. The High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 3186/2000 titled Raghubir Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. as regards rights of subsequent purchasers opined ...it is absolutely clear from a reading of all the above decisions that a subsequent purchaser cannot turn the clock back in respect of the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the appropriate Government is under no obligation to recognize the status of a subsequent purchaser, except to the limited extent of entitling him (in the place of the owner) to get compensation for the acquiring land.

12. In the present case after notification under Section 4 of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act and passing of the award, the possession has already been taken by the respondents and in the writ petition itself there is prayer for restoration of possession.

13. Considering all the facts and circumstances and the law, we are of the view that the alleged sale dated 27.2.1991 does not create any title in the application for substitution. This application consequently has no merit and has otherwise also become infructuous. The same is, therefore, dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost which be deposited with Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Cell within 8 weeks from today.

14. Copy of this judgment be sent to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Cell.