Satbir Singh Sehrawat And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1335 Del

JUDGMENT

S.L. Bhayana, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to allot alternative plot to the Petitioners under rehabilitation scheme of Village Nangal Dewat Abadi after considering the eligibility of the Petitioners collectively on the basis of entire Abadi land acquired vide Award No. 1858/65-66 and Award No. 16/86-87 and not only on the basis of Award no. 16/86-87.

2. The brief facts culminating into present Petition are that Petitioners claiming themselves to be owners of the property which is the subject matter of Section 4 Notification in question, have alleged that their land admeasuring 661 out of Kh. No. 1243( part of the old Lal Dora) included in the Naksha Muntazamin has been wrongly included to be part of Gaon Sabha. On 12.12.1965 a notification under Section 4 of Delhi Land Acquisition Act was issued where by acquisition of 151 bighas 10 biswas of land in village Nangal Dewat was proposed to be acquired for public purposes namely for the construction of New Terminal Area of Palam Airport. In the said proposed acquisition, the Petitioner's land was also included.

3. On the basis of the said Notification, the Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 20.12.1965 took possession of land of the Petitioners and handed over the same to the Airport authority of India. Thereafter entire village abadi including the houses and plots of residents of village Nangal Dewat, was notified and acquired vide Award no. 16/86-87 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act at the instance of Airport authority of India for extension of Palam Airport as well as Indira Gandhi international Airport.

4. The residents of village Nangal Dewat including the Petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court in Civil Writ No 481/82 titled as 'Daryao Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.'. The Airport Authority of India informed the Court that a scheme of rehabilitation would be prepared for the benefit of displaced residents and on that basis the challenge to the acquisition was withdrawn by the Petitioners.

5. In the meanwhile, residents of Village Nangal Dewat filed Writ Petitions and in the Writ Petition no. 775 of 2007 titled as 'Jaipal Vidylankar and Ors. v. DDA and Ors.' claims for allotment of alternative plots to the residents of Village Nangal Dewat in lieu of the land acquired for the purposes of extension of Airport, were agitated. These writ petitions were clubbed together and were heard by the ld. Single Judge as batch matters. The subject matter of present writ petition is identical to the issues raised in the above-mentioned Writ Petition wherein the contention of parties were extensively dealt with by the ld. Single Judge who approved the scheme of rehabilitation and issued directions for implementation of the same. The said judgment in turn went into appeal and was confirmed by the Division Bench of this High Court in case titled as 'Ballu Singh v. DDA and Ors. in the LPA 441 of 2007 wherein the Division Bench upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge and declined to interfere in the same.

6. The Respondents herein have also apprised this Court that a S.L.P. against the said judgment was also filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no stay has been granted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. It is quite apparent that the Section 4 Notification was upheld in the Daryao Singh's case and the scheme of rehabilitation was argued before the Single Judge and incidental matters like scheme of rehabilitation such as allotment of plots, development of the area earmarked for relocation and the implementation have been argued extensively. The ld. Single judge in batch matters pertaining to residents of Nangal Dewat dealt with all the issues concerning rehabilitation of the displaced residents and the implementation of the said scheme, and issued directions, which received the approval and sanctity of the Division Bench of this Court. Further the Supreme Court has declined to grant any stay.

8. In view of these developments and also the fact that the subject matter in the present petition is identical to the writ petition mentioned hereinabove and also the fact that the issues before us have been dealt with in the aforementioned writ petition, we see no reason to take a different view as this controversy has attained finality.

9. With these observations, we are of the considered opinion that this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. All pending applications are also hereby dismissed.