Confideration Of Delhi Ind. Soc. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 834 Del

JUDGMENT

J.P. Singh, J.

1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction for quashing the Award passed in pursuance of the Land Acquisition proceedings vide Notification dated 16.6.1998 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and Declaration under Section 6 of the said Act for the land measuring 11 bighas 16 biswas situated at village Chowkri Mubarikabad.

2. We have heard Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Counsel for LAC, Mr. B.S. Mann, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 and Mr. S.P. Sharma learned Counsel for respondent No. 7.

3. At the outset we find it necessary to mention that land was acquired for construction of Common Effluent Treatment Plant for the factories situated at Anand Parbat, Delhi in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but till today the Plant could not be constructed, apparently because of the machinations of the Petitioners and others.

4. Strangely this Petition is purported to be a Public Interest Litigation, whereas, in fact it is a Personal Interest Litigation and is directly against the public interest. The sole motive of the Petitioners who comprise the industrialists and the factory owners at Anand Parbat, Delhi is not to contribute their 50% share to meet the cost of the Common Effluent Treatment Plant. 25% cost is to be borne by the Union of India and the remaining 25% by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

5. We may further mention right in the beginning that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1959 for a large chunk of land. Objections were raised under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. After dealing with the objections a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued in the year 1969. The said Notifications were challenged in 1970 and quashing of the said Notifications was sought. The Writ Petitions seeking quashing were dismissed and LPAs were also dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. Then a Writ Petition was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which too was dismissed. After that Ramjas Foundation filed a separate suit challenging the Notifications which too was dismissed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 18.12.1997 passed in WP (C) No. 4511/1985 titled M.C. Mehta v. UOI and Ors. directed the government to construct Common Effluent Treatment Plants. One plant was to come up at Anand Parbat, Delhi. The Lt. Governor of Delhi was to fix a time schedule for construction of the Plants. For the said purpose the land was to be acquired at Anand Parbat, Delhi. With that urgent object the Government issued another Notification dated 16.6.1998 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire 11 bighas 16 biswas of land for the purpose of construction of Common Effluent Treatment Plant.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the land which was already under the process of acquisition vide Notification dated 13.11.1959 could not be acquired by a fresh Notification dated 16.6.1998 and compensation at the then prevailing rate could not be assessed.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended that since as per Balak Ram Gupta Judgment reported in AIR 1987,Delhi 239 (FB) the period of stay in the proceedings initiated by Ramjas Foundation is to be excluded, thus the acquisition proceedings on the basis of Notification in the year 1959 were still in operation. The said proceedings included the land in question, therefore the second proceedings initiated in 1998 in respect of the same land were illegal and void and that the Government cannot acquire the acquired land.

9. This shows that the attack of the Petitioners is two pronged. Firstly they say that that in view of the law laid down in Balak Ram Gupta's case and other proceedings initiated by Ramjas Foundation the land in question i.e., 11 bighas 16 biswas on which the Common Effluent Treatment Plant was to be constructed could not be re-acquired and Award could not be passed pursuant to Notification dated 16.6.1998 and their second ground of the attack is that even if the award is passed compensation could not be on the prevailing market rate of 1998 but it should have been on the value of the land in the year 1959 as was done in respect of the other adjoining lands.

10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that since the Ramjas Foundation and others had challenged the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in various proceedings, the LAC could not pass the Award within the stipulated period of two years and with efflux of time the Notification dated 13.11.1959 qua the land in question lapsed and thereafter for compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for construction of Common Effluent Treatment Plant a fresh Notification under Section 4 of the said Act had to be issued on 16.6.1998 for the land measuring 11 bighas 16 biswas and the Declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23.6.1998 and possession was taken on 10.7.1998 for implementation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is submitted that the said Notifications were also challenged by some parties but the acquisition was upheld and those Petitions were dismissed on 21.3.2003 and on subsequent dates. Till this date the Petitioners kept quite and as an afterthought challenged the Notifications through the present Petition only on 23.8.2003 to commence another innings with the sole motive of obstructing the implementation of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and thus the Petition is malafide.

11. Under somewhat similar facts and circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the second Notification in the case titled Raghunath v. State of Maharastra . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

9. Before concluding we must refer to one circumstance which was brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the petitioners and which has also been noticed in the judgment of the High Court. It appears that, between the date of withdrawal of the earlier writ petition (namely, August 23, 1983) and the issue of the second declaration under Section 6 (namely, April 4, 1985), the government had issued a fresh notification under Section 4 for the acquisition of certain lands. The lands in the two notifications under Section 4 do not completely overlap but it appears that some fields are common in both. No declaration under Section 6 appears to have been issued in furtherance of the second notification under Section 4 when the High Court heard the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that, at least in respect of such of the lands comprised in the Section 4 notification dated June 22, 1982 as are also covered by the subsequent notification under Section 4, it is legitimate to infer that the State Government has superseded the earlier notification by the later one. This contention is clearly well founded. We would, therefore, like to make it clear that in respect of the lands covered by the first notification under Section 4 which are also covered by, or comprised in, the second notification under Section 4, further proceedings regarding acquisition should be taken, in accordance with law, only in pursuance of the later notification and the proceedings initiated in respect of such lands by the first notification dated June 22, 1982 should be deemed to have been superseded.

12. We are of the view that when challenge to the Notifications of 1998 already stands dismissed repeatedly, the Petitions cannot wake up after five years and re-agitate and re-challenge the same Notifications over and over again either themselves or through others. The High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot entertain the matter if the Petitioners are guilty of such delays and latches.

13. Besides the Government and the other authorities were bound to follow the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which were admittedly for public welfare in Delhi. The conduct of the present petitioners who have woken up after five years smacks of malafide and their only motive seems to be not to part with the money which has to come out of them for construction of the Common Effluent Treatment Plant for their factories. They somehow want to continue with the discharge of polluting material into the river Yamuna. They are arguing against the payment of the prevailing rates to the land owners and at the same time are adding to the delay which delay is escalating the cost of construction. They have obviously become stumbling blocks in the implementation of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

14. Needless to say that with every days' delay the Government has to pay interest on the compensation and for this delay evidently the petitioners are responsible. Therefore they should be liable to pay interest @ 20% per annum for the delay which has accrued due to pendency of this malafide Petition. On this aspect we may cite the judgment titled Karnataka Rare Earth and Anr. v. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology and Anr. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:

10. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. 4 this Court dealt with the effect on the rights of the parties who have acted bona fide, protected by interim orders of the court and incurred rights and obligations while the interim orders stood vacated or reversed at the end. The Court referred to the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit and held that the doctrine was not confined in its application only to such acts of the court which were erroneous; the doctrine is applicable to all such acts as to which it can be held that the court would not have so acted had it been correctly apprised of the facts and the law. It is the principle of restitution which is attracted. When on account of an act of the party, persuading the court to pass an order, which at the end is held as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining advantage which it would not have otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the court and the act of such party,then the successful party finally held entitled to a relief, assessable in terms of money at the end of the litigation, is entitled to be compensated in the same manner in which the parties would have been if the interim order of the court would not have been passed. The successful party can demand: (a) the delivery of benefit earned by the opposite party under the interim order of the court, or (b) to make restitution for what it has lost.

15. Before parting with this Judgment we may say that as per record the founder of Ramjas Foundation gave up everything for welfare of the children and residents of Delhi but his successors are leaving no stone unturned to see that pollution of all types continues for the residents of Delhi especially to the detriment of the children. They have been creating obstacles after obstacles, though they had let out the land in question to the third parties. In view of the above facts, circumstances and the law, we do not find any merit in the Petition. The same has been filed to stall the compliance of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

16. Since it is drafted as Public Interest Petition, we direct that the Respondent authorities in order to curb the delay in implementation of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India should order sealing and closure of all the polluting factories and industries in the area till the Common Effluent Treatment Plant becomes operational.

17. The concerned respondents will work out the amount due from the Petitioners and will intimate them through their learned Counsel in the ordinary course and through Registered AD Post within three days. The Petitioners are directed to deposit jointly and/or severally the entire said amount with the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, within four weeks thereafter, failing which it be recovered as land revenue.

18. With these directions we dismiss this malafide Petition with Rs. 2 lacs (Rupees Two lacs) as costs in favor of Respondent No. 4 (L&B) and Respondent No. 5 (LAC). The amount lying deposited with Registrar General be returned to the LAC Northwest for disbursement as per law.

C.M No. 10252/2003 (Stay)

The application does not survive and is accordingly dismissed.