Delhi High Court
Bawa Satyapaul Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 27 January, 2009
Author: A.K.Sikri
Unreportable
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) No. 2783 of 1985
and
WP (C) No. 2092 of 1985
% Reserved on : December 01, 2008
Pronounced on : January 27 , 2009
1. WP (C) No. 2783/1985
Bawa Satyapaul Singh . . . Appellant
through : Mr. N.S. Vashisht with
Mr. Vishal Singh , Advocates
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. . . . Respondents
through : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
2. WP (C) No. 2092/1985
Ram Singh Tyagi & Ors. . . . Appellants
through : Mr. N.S. Vashisht with
Mr. Vishal Singh , Advocates
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. . . . Respondents
through : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
CORAM :-
THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
WP (C) Nos. 2783 & 2092/1985 nsk Page 1 of 8
A.K. SIKRI, J.
1. These two writ petitions raise identical issue with singular but
important difference on a fact which has resulted in varying results.
2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) was issued on 25.11.1980
covering six revenue estates, including the revenue estate of village
Chattarpur, land whereof was sought to be acquired. The land of
the petitioner is situate in village Chattarpur and was covered by that
notification. Objections under Section 5-A of the Act were invited.
Large number of persons filed their objections which, however, did
not find favour with the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC). On the
basis of report of the LAC, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
issued by the competent authority on 7.6.1985 thereby acquiring the
land. The petitioners in these two writ petitions have challenged the
validity of the aforesaid notifications under Section 4 & 6 of the Act.
3. We may note that in WP (C) No. 2783/1995 the petitioner has
referred to some other writ petitions which were filed at that time
and pending consideration and, inter alia, submits that writ petition
of the petitioner raises an identical and similar question of law as
raised in those writ petitions. Question of law which the petitioner
raises is that though Section 4 notification was issued on 25.11.1980,
declaration was not made within three years thereafter and on the
expiry of three years, Notification under Section 4 lapsed. Therefore,
it was not open to the respondents to issue declaration under Section
6 of the Act after a lapse of three years from the date of Notification
under Section 4 of the Act thereof. Thus, such a declaration is not
only illegally, unconstitutional, unwarranted, but is also barred by
time. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed WP
(C) No. 649/1984 (which was obviously filed before the declaration
was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 7.6.1985) challenging
Section 4 Notification on the ground that it had lapsed after a period
of three years. However, the petitioner withdrew the said writ
petition as, according to him, when it came up for consideration, the
Division Bench felt that the same was premature. We may point out
that neither the date on which the petition was dismissed as
withdrawn is given nor the copy of the order is placed along with
this writ petition.
4. Challenge on the aforesaid ground is clearly misconceived as the
matter stands covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India, 117 (2005) DLT 753,
where the vires of same Section 4 Notification was upheld. The
decision in Balam Ram Gupta (supra) was upheld by the Supreme
Court in DDA v. Sudan Singh, (1997) 5 SCC 430. The petitioner,
however, does not want that the matter is given a quietus on this
ground. Certain subsequent developments on judicial side, which
have taken place while deciding various other writ petitions, are
sought to be taken advantage of by the petitioner. We may first
refer to these developments.
5. The Apex Court had occasion to consider the decision in Balak Ram
Gupta (supra) once again in Abhey Ram Vs. Union of India (1997) 5
SCC 421, and thereafter in Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh
Uban (1999) 7 SCC 44. In these cases, the Supreme Court took the
view that the benefit of the judgment of Balak Ram Gupta (supra)
was available only to the 72 petitioners whose cases were decided by
that judgment. The Court laid down the principle that ratio of the
said judgment can be availed of only by those who had filed
objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and those
who failed to file such objections were not competent to challenge
the notification.
6. What follows from the aforesaid is that the petitioner would be
entitled to the benefit of Balak Ram Gupta (supra) only if he had
filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. In the present case,
there is no such averment made by the petitioner that he had failed
any such objections. No doubt, in certain cases, where such an
averment was not taken, on the application filed under Order VI
Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, during the pendency of
those writ petitions, those petitioners were allowed the amendment
permitting them to raise such a plea, even if not originally raised,
when it was found that objections under Section 5-A of the Act were
in fact filed by those petitioners. We may point out that in certain
cases such amendments were even disallowed and writ petitions
dismissed.
Be that as it may, in the present case, no such application is
filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the writ petition for
incorporation of the plea regarding filing of objection under Section
5-A of the Act. Reason is obvious. The petitioner, in the writ
petition itself, has impliedly conceded that no such objections were
filed by him inasmuch as in paras 6 to 8 of writ petition it is
specifically averred that other land owners filed the objections.
Interestingly, in paras 6 & 7, it is originally typed that "objections
filed by the petitioner and other land owners", but the words
„petitioner‟ and „alongwith‟ are specifically scored out. We
reproduce paras 6 & 7, as typed, with the aforesaid words scored
out:-
"6. That the petitioner alongwith other land and owners in
the revenue estate of Village Chattarpur, received Notices in
the first week of January, 1984, purported to be under Section
5-A directing them to appear before the Collector for a
personal hearing on the objections filed by the petitioner and
other land owners. The said notice was received by the
petitioner them after a span of more than three years from the
date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the
Act.
7. That on the date fixed under the said notice, the
petitioner alongwith the other land owners appeared before
the Collector and raised the following objections, inter-alia,
amongst other :-
"That the three years period from the date of
publication of Notification under section 4(1) of the Act
had expired and as such no declaration under Section 6
of the Act could be made".
This clearly implies that insofar as the petitioner is concerned,
he has not filed any objections. In view thereof, as per the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Gurdip
Singh Uban & Ors. etc. etc., AIR 1999 SC 3822, the petitioner shall
not be entitled to the benefit of the judgment in the case of Balak
Ram Gupta (supra), or for that matter Chatro Devi & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors., 137 (2007) DLT 14.
WP (C) No. 2783/1985 is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. However, in WP (C) No. 2092/1985, the petitioner therein has made
a specific averment in para 5 that he had filed objections under
Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner subsequently also filed
application under Order VI Ruler 17 of CPC (CM No. 13516/1999)
with a prayer that he be allowed to amend the writ petition and
incorporate the factum of filing of objections under Section 5-A of
the Act. However, it appears that thereafter no specific orders were
passed in this case as this writ petition was tagged along with other
batch of writ petitions and common orders were passed from time to
time in all these cases. Thereafter, this writ petition was adjourned
to await the opinion of the third Judge in Chatro Devi (supra).
8. In any case, no such application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was
even necessary as there is already a specific plea taken in the writ
petition itself that the petitioner had filed the objections under
Section 5-A of the Act and in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent this averment is specifically admitted by the respondent,
case of the petitioner in this writ petition shall be covered by the
judgment of this Court in Balak Ram Gupta (supra) as well as in
Chatro Devi (supra).
9. WP (C) No. 2092/1985 is accordingly allowed. Notification issued
under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act qua the petitioner‟s land in WP (C)
No. 2092/1985, which is comprised in Khasra Nos. 415, 417, 418,
422, 436, 437, 440, 441, 442 & 443 measuring 42 bigha and 12
biswa in revenue estate of village Chattarpur is hereby quashed.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
January , 2009
nsk
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) No. 2092 of 1985
% Reserved on : December 01, 2008
Pronounced on : January , 2009
Ram Singh Tyagi & Ors. . . . Appellants
through : Mr. N.S. Vashisht with
Mr. Vishal Singh , Advocates
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. . . . Respondents
through : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
CORAM :-
THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
For orders, see WP (C) No. 2783/1985.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
January 27, 2009
nsk
