Delhi High Court
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr vs Lt.Governor,Govt. Of N.C.T. Of ... on 8 September, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9647/2009 & CM 7710/2009
Reserved on: 2nd September, 2009
Pronounced on: 8th September, 2009
# RAJINDER KISHAN GUPTA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
! Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Vivek Singh and Mr.
Manish Kaushik, Advocates.
Versus
$ LT.GOVERNOR,GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS
..... Respondents
^ Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon for Forest Deptt.
GNCT, Mr. Yatinder Chaudhary, Adv. for R-
2/UOI, Mr. Tarun Johri and Mr. Ankur
Gupta, Advocates for DMRC, Mr. Pawan
Mathur, Advocate for DDA, Mr. Sanjay
Poddar, Advocate for LAC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the
Digest? Yes
W.P.(C) No. 9647/2009 Page 1 of 63
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
V.K.Jain, J.
A Notification dated 24.10.1961 was issued under Section
4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, to acquire vast chunk of agricultural
land in Delhi for planned development of Delhi. The notification
covered land of the petitioners in Village Mehrauli. Declaration
under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act") in respect of the aforesaid land was issued on 4th
January, 1969. After filing objections and claims pursuant to the
notice dated 26.4.83, issued under Section 9 of Land Acquisition
Act, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1129 of 1983,
challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings. The Writ
Petition filed by the petitioners having been dismissed by this
court on 15th April, 2004, they filed Review Petition No. 253 of
2004 which also was dismissed by this court vide order dated 13 th
August, 2004. The petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 2418-
2419/2008 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and vide order
dated 24.01.2005, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court granted status quo
in respect of possession of land in question.
2. In October 2008, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited
(hereinafter referred to as "DMRC"), filed an application being I.A.
No 1 and 2 of 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 2418 - 2419/2008, seeking
impleadment in the appeal and vacation of stay orders dated
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
24.1.2005 and 31.3.2008 on the ground that land admeasuring
26,187 Sq mtr was required urgently for construction of
Chattarpur Metro Railway Station on Qutub Minar - Gurgaon
Corridor of MRTS, which was scheduled to be commissioned in
January 2010 and was held up on account of inability expressed by
DDA to allot the said land to DMRC, due to stay orders passed by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. It was further stated in the
application that timely execution of the work being necessary on
account of approaching Commonwealth Games 2010 in Delhi, the
land was required by DMRC on an urgent basis. It was also stated
in the application that DMRC proposes to construct Chattarpur
Metro Railway Station including Running Section, Entry/Exit Area,
road Modification and Staircase of Foot Bridge, Viaduct, Traction
Sub Station on the aforesaid land. A copy of the map showing total
area of land required for construction of Chattarpur Metro Railway
Station was enclosed with the application as Annexure-A. It was
also stated in the application that the route proposed for the
construction of Phase-II of the Project between Qutub Minar -
Gurgaon corridor had been thoroughly investigated and the same
had been proved to be the most feasible route economically and
for the purposes of the ridership etc etc.
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
3. Vide order dated 17th November, 2008, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court directed as under:
"Impleadment allowed.
In the matters order of status quo has been
running from 24th January, 2005.
I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 have been preferred by
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited. From the
I.A., it appears that Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Limited requires urgently an area admeasuring 2.6
hectares (approximately) for Chhatarpur Railway
Station.
Having heard learned counsel on both sides,
we hereby clarify that the order of status quo
passed by this court will not come in the way of
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited proceeding
with fresh acquisition in accordance with law.
I.A. accordingly stand disposed of.
We make it clear that rights and contentions
on both sides with regard to fresh acquisition are
expressly kept open."
4. An application dated 19th January 2009 was filed by
respondents No. 2 and 3 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for
modification of its order dated 17.11.2008. It was stated in Para
12 of the application that notification issued by Delhi Government
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
for acquisition of land in question had neither lapsed nor was it
withdrawn by the Government and therefore another notification
could not be issued afresh in respect of the same land.
Respondents No. 2 and 3 felt aggrieved by the order dated
17.11.2008 to the extent it directed "fresh" acquisition. They
sought deletion of the word "fresh" from the order dated 17th
November, 2008. DMRC also filed an application stating therein
that it required the land in question on an urgent basis for timely
implementation of DMRC project which was required to be
commissioned before Commonwealth Games 2010 and had no
objection to the application of Respondents No. 2 and 3 for
modification of the order dated 17.11.2008.
5. The applications were disposed of by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 23rd February, 2009 which reads as under:
"Order dated 17th November, 2008 needs no
clarification. It is expressly passed in the I.A. of
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.
Applications for modification of Court‟s Order
dated 17th November, 2008 are disposed of
accordingly. WE clarify that the said Order was
passed only because Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
wanted to acquire a portion urgently on payment of
compensation at the current rate. Hence, we used
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
the word "fresh" in the said Order. The said Order
was passed not in the main matter and not in the
I.A. Therefore, Order dated 17.11.2008 is not a
direction. It does not affect the case of the parties
in the Civil Appeal."
6. On June 6, 2009, Respondent No. 3 published a notification
dated June 2, 2009 under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act,
withdrawing its earlier notification for acquisition of land in
question. A fresh notification dated June 4, 2009 was published on
June 7, 2009 exercising powers under Section 4 read with Section
17(1) (4) of the Act seeking to acquire land of the petitioners. The
notification dated 4.6.09 has been challenged in the present
petition.
7. In his counter affidavit dated 2nd July, 2009, Respondent No.
5, LAC, has alleged that at the time of passing of orders dated
17.11.2008 and 23.2.2009, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was fully
appraised of the facts and the only issue which was required to be
decided at that point of time was as to whether compensation as
prevalent in the year 1961 was to be paid or current market price
was to be paid to the petitioners and since the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court declined the request for deletion of word "fresh" from the
order passed by it, the only inference was that the petitioner was
to be paid compensation as per the current market price. It has
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
been further alleged that the request of DMRC for acquisition of
28 Bighas 5 BIswa of land in Chhatarpur for Metro Station, to
expand the line to Gurgaon before the Commonwealth Games, was
considered in an urgent meeting held by the Chief Secretary on 5 th
March, 2009. The Lieutenant Governor vide his order dated
18.5.2009 was pleased to direct the issuance of Section 4
notification of the Act read with Section 17(1). Since the Lt.
Governor was also satisfied that the land was urgently required by
DMRC, the filing of objection under Section 5A was dispensed
with. The Lt. Governor also granted approval for release of land in
question under Section 48 of the Act, from the purview of the
notification issued in the year 1961. Therefore, first notification
was issued under Section 48 of the Act on 2.6.2009 whereby the
land in question was released from acquisition initiated vide
notification dated 24.10.1961. The second notification was issued
on 4.6.2009 under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Act
seeking to acquire the land in question for public purpose namely
for construction of Qutub-Minar - Gurgaon Corridor Delhi MRTS
Project, Phase-II and both the notifications were duly published. It
has also been stated in the reply that Government is paying
current market price to the petitioners. It has been further stated
that land in question is coming in the alignment of metro line and
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
it is not possible to shift the Metro Station and the competent
authority was fully aware of this fact while granting the approval
for invocation of urgency clause. It has been averred that there is
no undue delay in undertaking commission as the file remained
under active consideration of the Government and the notifications
were issued after complying with all the formalities required under
the law.
8. In its reply dated 13.6.2009, Respondent No. 6, DMRC
alleged that it had earlier approached the Central Empowered
Committee (CEC), constituted under the directions of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, seeking permission to construct Chhattarpur
Station and Electric Sub Station on DDA land. Since the DDA land
was a notified Forest land, the CEC recommended for the shifting
the location of the Electric Sub Station from forest land to the land
of the petitioners, that being a non forest land. It has been alleged
that each portion of the land of the petitioners is essential for the
construction of the Chhattapur Station and the Electric Sub
Station. It has been further stated that there is no provision in
Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 for acquisition of
the land on an urgent basis and therefore, resort to the provisions
of the Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, is completely legal
and valid.
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
9. Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 i.e. Lt. Governor, Govt.of NCT of
Delhi and Land and Building Department, also filed a counter
affidavit dated 1.7.09 taking pleas identical to the pleas contained
in the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 5. It has been stated in
the counter affidavit of Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 that after
meeting taken by him on 5.3.09, the Chief Secretary vide his note
dated 28.4.09 sought approval for issuance of requisite
notifications under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The Lt.
Governor thereupon desired that the Government should first try
to seek vacation of stay order from the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for
early disposal of the case pending before it. However, looking into
the urgency involved in the matter, the Chief Secretary vide his
note dated 30.4.09, again requested the Lt. Governor for issuance
of notification under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The
Lt. Governor thereupon directed the issuance of notification under
Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Act vide order dated
18.5.09 and since he was satisfied that the land was urgently
required by DMRC, the right to file objection under Section 5A
was also dispensed with. It has been further stated that DMRC
has already deposited a sum of Rs. 3,28,56,687.49 with the
Government being 80% of the estimated compensation as required
under Section 17(3A) of the Act. It has been alleged that there
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
was no delay in issuance of notification as the file was to be
processed at various levels and report from Government counsels
appearing before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was also to be
sought before taking a decision on the request of DMRC dated
19.11.2008 for issuance of a fresh notification under the provisions
of Land Acquisition Act. Since issuance of a fresh notification
would have resulted in payment of additional compensation to the
land owners, it was desired, in order to save public money, that an
appropriate application be made to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
the mean time. In the mean time, report was also sought from the
Revenue Department. As the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined to
modify its order, steps to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings
were taken and notifications were issued after detailed
consultations and obtaining necessary approvals. It has also been
alleged that land in question cannot be excluded from acquisition
and Metro Station cannot be shifted to some other land. In its
counter affidavit dated 28.7.09, respondent DDA has stated that
DMRC had requisitioned for the requirement of 27584 sq. mtr. of
land at Chhattarpur in connection with construction of Qutub
Minoar - Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS project, Phase-II vide
its letter dated 13.12.2007. It has been further alleged that
between the land of DDA and the land allotted to DMRC, there is
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
another land, acquisition of which is under challenge before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court. It has been stated that though the land
sought by DMRC was the land with respect to which acquisition
proceedings were under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 2418-19 of
2008 and Civil Appeal No. 2729 of 2008, the DDA was of the view
that land measuring 4331 sq. mtr was free from challenge to the
acquisition and the same was therefore allotted to the DMRC vide
letter dated 4.7.08. It later transpired, at the time of handing over
of possession to DMRC that, in fact, the land allotted to DMRC was
subject matter of the appeal pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court. After a meeting, chaired by Chief Secretary on 5.3.09 to
consider the acquisition of land for DMRC, a joint survey of the
land was carried out and pursuant thereto, a afresh notification
was issued on 4.6.09.
10. Since there was dispute between the parties as to whether
land of DDA available in the vicinity was forest land or not, Chief
Conservator (Forest) and Director (Land Management-I) of DDA
were directed to make spot inspection in the presence of officials
of DMRC and the petitioners and affidavits were directed to be
filed by Chief Conservator (Forest) and DDA.
11. An action taken report was filed by Conservator of Forests
on 18th August, 2009 after carrying out joint inspection in terms of
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
our directions dated 11th August, 2009. The copies of Zonal Plan
of Zone "J" of DDA and Total Station Method (TSM) Survey map of
village Mehrauli was available to the officers who carried out the
inspection. The petitioners were also present at the time of
inspection. It has been reported in the Action Taken Report that
the subject land, as mentioned in notification dated 4.6.09, is
situated on the tri-junction of Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli -
Mahipalpur Road and Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road in village Mehrauli
and a part of the Regional Park and Reserved Forest in South
Central Ridge as per MPD 2021 and notification dated 24.5.94. It
has been further stated that Central Empowered Committee also
recommended use of 2.3 hectare of above subject land falling in
Delhi Ridge area for construction purpose, which was accepted by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 23.3.07. It has
been alleged that 1.9 hectare of adjacent DDA land situated on
Mehrauli - Gurgaon Road has been partly used by DMRC for
construction of the Viaduct for the elevated metro line and casting
yards. The land, presently, used as casting yard, has been
earmarked for development of parking space for Chhatarpur
Station, after the metro construction work is over. Government of
India, on the recommendation made by Central Empowered
Committee and the approval of Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
dated 23.3.07, has allowed DMRC to use this 1.9 hectare of land
which is part of 5.56 hectare of notified Reserved Forest land in
the Ridge under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980,
for non-forestry use. The Central Empowered Committee has also
recommended temporary non-forestry use of another 2.17 hectare
of DDA land by DMRC, which is adjacent to the above said
diverted land for a period of three years with the condition that no
tree shall be removed from the said land, and after completion of
the project, this part of the land shall be restored to its original
condition. It has accordingly been reported by Conservator of
Forest that the subject land as well as DDA land adjacent to it are
situated within its boundary of Reserved Park as per MPD 2021
and the Reserved Forest in the South-Central Ridge as per the
notification dated 24.5.94. The boundaries of the Reserved Forest
as notified vide notification dated 24.5.94 and that of the Regional
Park mentioned in MPD 2021 are the same. Being Government
land situated within the boundary of Regional Park / Reserved
Forest in South Central Ridge, the adjacent DDA land is, therefore,
a forest land, part of which has already been utilised by Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation for non-forestry use.
12. An affidavit was filed by Director - L.M.-H.Q., DDA on 19th
August, 2009. In his affidavit, he stated that pursuant to
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
directions of this court, a joint inspection was carried out on
12.8.09 on the basis of Zonal Development Plan for Zone-„J‟ as well
as plan of Forest Department, it was clarified that land in question
before this court as well as land of DDA falls within the Regional
Park and Reserved Forest in South-Central Ridge. The Aks Shajra
of the area is filed as Annexure R7-A with the affidavit. It has been
stated that the portion shown in red colour is the land in dispute
whereas the portion shown in blue colour (4.64 acres) is allotted
to DMRC, portion shown in green colour (4.06 acres), is DDA land,
possession of which is with DDA. It has been further stated that
the portion shown in yellow colour in the Annexure - R7-A is under
litigation under SLP (C) No. 14047/05 and DDA has given an
undertaking to the Supreme Court on 18.11.2005 that it still not
deal with this land nor create any third party interest on it. The
area shown in yellow colour measures 8.87 acres.
13. The acquisition has been assailed before us on the following
grounds:
(i) the orders of Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 24.1.05 and
31.3.2008 envisaged acquisition of land in question by DMRC
under Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 and
therefore acquisition under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act
was not permissible
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
(ii) De hors orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, Land for
the purpose of DMRC can be acquired only under Metro Railway
(Construction of Works) Act, 1978;
(iii) There was no ground to invoke urgency clause under
Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act as the respondents were guilty
of delay and did not take steps before October 2008 to obtain
possession of land in question and even after fresh acquisition was
allowed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the respondents did not
move expeditiously as the notification came to be issued more than
three months after the order of Hon‟ble Supreme Court;
(iv) There was no ground for dispensing with the issue of
notice as envisaged under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act as
the respondents could have concluded the inquiry will in time had
they acted with expedition;
(v) Since land belonging to DDA is available in the vicinity
and the project report approved by the Government of India for
this Section of MRTS envisages use of Government land, the DDA
land and not the land of the petitioners should be made available
to DMRC.
14. A perusal of the application filed by DMRC before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2418-2419 of 2008
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
would show that no request was made by it for permission to
acquire land in question under the provisions of Metro Railway
(Construction of Works) Act, 1978. The prayer made was to
implead it as a party and vacate the status quo orders. The
Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.11.2008 clarified that
the order of status quo would not come in the way of DMRC
proceeding with a „fresh‟ acquisition. Since no acquisition by
DMRC under the provisions of Metro Railway (Construction of
Works) Act, 1978, existed at that time there could be no question
of its initiating a „fresh‟ acquisition. Acquisition by the
Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act was,
however, in force at the time of passing of this order. In these
circumstances, use of the word „fresh acquisition‟ in our view, in
the order of Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 17.11.08 implied that
DMRC could acquire the land through the Government, by way of
a fresh acquisition, by the Government.
15. We have also perused the applications of Respondents No. 2
and 3 as well as the application of DMRC before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court for modification of the order dated 17.11.08. The
plea of respondents No. 2 and 3 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
was that since the notification already issued by the Government
was still in force and had neither lapsed nor been quashed or
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
withdrawn, another notification in respect of the same land could
not be issued afresh. They accordingly sought deletion of the word
„fresh from the order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
There was no reference to any acquisition by DMRC under Metro
Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 in this application. It is
thus obvious that respondents No. 2 and 3 also interpreted the
order the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 17.11.08 to be an order
for fresh acquisition by them under the provision of Land
Acquisition Act. It its application for modification of order dated
17.11.2008, the DMRC informed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that
when it approached the land and building department of
Government of NCT for issuance of a fresh notification with
respect to land in question, it was informed that the department
was unable to proceed further to issue fresh acquisition in this
matter as previous notification was still operative and had not
been quashed. The DMRC conveyed its no objection to the
application filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3. Thus, the
application of DMRC also did not contain any reference to
acquisition under the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act,
1978. In fact, the application made it quite clear that it was
seeking fresh acquisition through Government of NCT of Delhi and
had already approached its Land & Building department for this
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
purpose. Thus, acquisition by DMRC under the provisions of
Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 was not even in
contemplation either of the Government or of the DMRC, when
they filed this application and both of them were referring to
acquisition by Government of NCT of Delhi under the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act only. During the course of arguments, we
inquired from the petitioners as to whether they had filed any
reply to the applications for modification of the order dated
17.11.08 and if so, whether in the reply they had taken the stand
that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had permitted acquisition under
the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 and not a
fresh acquisition under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. We
were informed that no reply to these applications was filed by the
petitioners. Thus, despite, an opportunity to do so, the petitioners
did not say, before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, that the order
dated 17.11.2008 envisaged acquisition under the provisions of
Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 and not under
the provisions of Land acquisition Act. The inevitable inference is
that the petitioners also understood the order of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court dated 17.11.08 as an order permitting fresh acquisition
under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and did not interpret
it as an order permitting acquisition taking recourse to the
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
provisions of Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. It
has been alleged by the petitioners that the counsel for DDA had
informed DDA, after court hearing that acquisition was permitted
under the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. We
don‟t have any letter of the counsel on record. More importantly,
the applications filed by Govt. & DMRC who were the concerned
agencies, show that in their interpretation, the order envisaged
fresh acquisition by the Government.
16. Vide order dated 23.2.2009, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
clarified that order dated 17.11.2008 was passed by it only
because DMRC wanted to acquire land urgently on payment of
compensation of current rate and that is why they had used the
word „fresh‟ in the order. Since there is no provision for
acquisition of land on urgent basis in the Metro Railway
(Construction of Works) Act, 1978, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
while passing the order dated 17.11.08 and 23.2.2009 could not
have intended acquisition under the Metro Railway (Construction
of Works) Act, 1978. Permitting acquisition on urgent basis leaves
no doubt as regards the Act which was to be resorted to for fresh
acquisition of land. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention
of the petitioners in this regard.
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
17. Now we come to the second contention of the petitioners
that de hors the order of Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the acquisition
for the purpose of DMRC is permissible only under the provisions
of the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. The
question whether acquisition under Land Acquisition Act is
permissible or not, when there is a parallel Act envisaging
acquisition for a special purpose, has been subject matter of
judicial pronouncements from time to time.
In S.S.Darshan versus State of Karnataka and Others,
AIR (1996) SC 671, land was sought to be acquired under Section
4(1) read with Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act, for
establishment of a technological park which was a joint venture
project of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board. Power
of acquisition was also available to the Government under
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Karnataka Act
did not contain emergency provision and it was, therefore,
contended before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that acquisition
under Land Acquisition Act, which is a more stringent provision,
was violative of Article 14 since it deprived the appellants of the
right of the more liberal provisions of the Karnataka Act, 1966.
The contention was rejected by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
holding that in view of the urgent need for acquisition of land,
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
which could not have been met under Karnataka Act, resort to
provisions of Central Act could not be faulted.
18. In Pawan Singh & Ors. Versus UOI & Ors., 112 (2004)
DLT 420, it was contended before the Division Bench of this Court
that the land for the purpose of DMRC is to be necessarily
acquired only by invoking the provisions of the Metro Railways Act
which is a complete code, specially enacted for the purpose of
acquisition of land and building etc. for construction of the Metro
Railway. The contention was rejected by the Division Bench,
relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the
case of S.S.Darshan (supra) as well as its later judgment in
Savitri Cairae Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr.,
(2003 (5) Scale 93 and in Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs.
Vasantrao and Others, 2002 (7) SCC 657 where it was held that
for the purpose of providing housing facilities to the people, lands
could be acquired both under Land Acquisition Act as well as
under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam. It was
pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of
Pawan Singh (supra), resort to the provisions of Section 17 of the
Land Acquisition Act by the Government had not been challenged
by the petitioners. The contention was that resort to the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act would not have been upheld in
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
the case of Pawan Singh (supra), had the petitioners in that case
challenged the urgency clause by the Government. We are unable
to agree. The Court examined the provision of Metro Railway
(Construction of Works) Act, 1978 vis-a-vis provisions of Land
Acquisition Act and came to the conclusion that taking recourse to
LA Act was permissible. In Nitin versus Lt. Governor and Ors.
W.P.(C) No.5049/2007, decided by a Division Bench of this Court
on 30.7.2007, this Court rejected the contention that the
acquisition was bad, having not been made under the provisions of
Metro (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. In Ram Niwas vs. Lt.
Governor and Ors. , (2007) (VIII) AD (D) 493, a Division Bench of
this Court again rejected a similar contention. In Summit Inport
Services Ltd. and Anr. vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corproration and
Ors., W.P.(C) No.573/2008 decided on 11.4.2008, this Court again
repelled the contention that acquisition of land for the benefit of
DMRC was impermissible under the provisions of Land Acquisition
Act. It would be pertinent to note here that land in the case of
Summit (supra) was acquired taking recourse to the urgency
provisions contained in Section 17(1) and 17(4) of Land
Acquisition Act.
19. Admittedly Metro Act, does not contain any provision for
urgent acquisition of land. If we accept the contention that no
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
land for the purpose of DMRC can be acquired under the provision
of Land Acquisition Act, the inevitable result would be that even if
a small piece of land is urgently required for a project of DMRC,
the Government would be helpless and would not be able to
acquire the land leading to failure of the project. Such an
interpretation is neither justified nor sustainable in law. Therefore,
we find no merit in the contention that acquisition was bad, having
been made under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
20. Now we deal with the contentions that the acquisition is bad
in law as there was no ground or justification to invoke urgency
provisions of Land Acquisition Act and dispense with the inquiry
envisaged under Section 5A of the Act. The argument before us
was that though the project was approved by the Government of
India way back on 4.12.2006, neither DMRC nor the Government
sought vacation of the status quo order passed by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, at any time prior to October 2008 and therefore
they cannot be allowed to take recourse to the urgency provisions
to get out of a situation brought about by their own lethargy and
delay. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that there
was no delay on their part and in fact DMRC had requisitioned
land from DDA vide its letter dated 13.12.2007 and DDA had also
allotted 4331 sq. meter of land to it vide its letter dated 4 th July,
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
2008 though it later transpired that the land allotted to DMRC was
subject matter of the appeal pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court.
21. We are of the opinion that in view of the orders of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 17.11.2008 and 23.2.09, we need
not go into the questions of delay prior to the orders passed by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court. As noted earlier, in its application before
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court DMRC brought it to the notice of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court that land in question was urgently
required by it for construction of Chattarpur Metro Railway
Station on Qutub Minar - Gurgaon Corridor of MRTS, which was
scheduled to be commissioned in January 2010 and that the
project was held up on account of inability expressed by the DDA
to allot the said land to it on account of stay orders passed by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court despite the delays which had taken place
up to filing of the application, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decided
to allow a fresh acquisition on payment of compensation at current
rates. Once the Hon‟ble Supreme Court took note of the matter
and gave clearance for a fresh acquisition so as to meet the urgent
requirement of DMRC, it is not open to this court to go into the
delays, if any, prior to the orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
and take a view that invocation of urgency provisions and
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act was not justified because there was delay on the
part of the respondents.
22. As regards the period taken by the respondents after passing
of the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that
there has been no unreasonable delay on the part of the
respondents. The affidavit filed by the respondents would show
that the matter received attention of the Government at the
highest level and a meeting was taken by none other than Chief
Secretary on 5.3.09 to consider acquisition of land in question. A
number of formalities were required to be completed before
placing the matter before the Lt. Governor seeking approval of the
notification under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act and issue of
a fresh notification for acquisition. Learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted the file relating to this notification for
our perusal. We find that on 19th November, 2008 itself DMRC
had written to the Government requesting that acquisition process
for land in question be initiated at the earliest and in least possible
time. The letter having been written just two days after the first
order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it cannot be staid that there
was any delay on the part of DMRC in approaching the
Government. A perusal of the file shows that the matter always
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
remained under process and there has been no unreasonable delay
at any level. We have to appreciate that the Government has its
own procedures and systems for processing the files and it may
not be always possible to move on a very fast speed. But, that by
itself would not indicate any efficiency or negligence on the part of
the Government. Various checks and balances are necessary and
inherent in the functioning of a Government and therefore the files
required to be examined and processed at various levels. When
the request of DMRC contained in its letter dated 19.11.08 was
examined in the light of order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated
17.11.08, it was noticed by them that since notification dated
24.10.61 issued in respect of this very land was still in operation
and had neither been quashed nor withdrawn, a fresh acquisition,
during the subsistence of the previous notification may not be
valid. Therefore, a letter was sent by the Government to DMRC
suggesting it to seek modification or order of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court dated 17.11.2008. Before writing of this letter, a meeting
was also held in Land and Building Department where this issue
was discussed pursuant to a noting on the file. After the order of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 23.2.09, DMRC wrote a letter
dated 23.2.09 to Land and Building department seeking
acquisition of land under Section 17 as it was urgently required for
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
construction of Chattarpur Metro Railway Station on Qutub Minar
- Gurgaon Corridor of MRTS, Viaduct, and Electric Sub Station
etc. and thereupon a meeting was convened by the Chief Secretary
on 5the March, 2009 to discuss various issues relating to
acquisition of this land. Minutes of the meeting, which are
available on the file, would show that it was decided that DMRC
would move DDA requesting them to terminate the earlier land
acquisition proceedings and would also send a formal proposal for
initiating a fresh proceeding under Section 4, 6 and 17 of Land
Acquisition Act. On receipt of proposal from DMRC, Land &
Building department was to move a proposal to Lt. Governor for
terminating the earlier proceedings and initiating a fresh
acquisition proceeding invoking the urgency clause. It was also
decided to initiate process at the earliest. Pursuant to this
decision, DMRC wrote a letter to Land & Building department on
5the March, 2009 itself seeking a fresh acquisition of land. Land
& Building department also sent a letter dated 9.3.09 to LAC
(South). Request made to forward the draft notification along with
documents such as 80 per cent compensation calculation sheet,
joint survey report, field book, aks shajra. The joint survey was
carried out between 18.3.09 and 20.3.09 and the report of the
survey is available on the file. The draft notifications were
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
prepared on 23.3.09 and a detailed proposal for acquisition was
put up on 27th March, 2009. The proposal was examined at
various levels. It was finally cleared by the Chief Secretary on 20 th
April, 2009. However, vide note dated 27.4.09, the Chief
Secretary was informed that Lt. Governor, after considering the
matter had directed that to engage a senior counsel along with
DMRC for vacation of stay order in the aforesaid litigation and
early disposal of the case. When the file came back to the Chief
Secretary, he prepared a fresh note on 30.4.09 pointing out that
Metro Station at Chhatarpur had to be completed before
Commonwealth Games. Thereupon, the proposal was approved by
Lt. Governor on 5th May, 2009 in override public interest. On
18.5.09, the Lt. Governor, after according his satisfaction that land
measuring 28 Bighas, 12 Biswa and 5 Biswansi was urgently
required for construction of Qutum-Minar - Gurgaon Corridor of
MRTS Project and in view of urgency of the scheme ordered that
the provision of Section 5A shall not comply and notification under
Section 4 read with Section 17(4), 6 and 17(1) of Land Acquisition
Act be issued immediately. In these circumstances, it cannot be
said that there has been any delay as such on the part of DMRC or
the Government in processing the matter, after the orders of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
23. In Jage Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.,
1971 (1) SCC 671, notification was issued invoking urgency
provision contained in Land Acquisition Act and enquiry envisaged
under Section 5A was also dispensed with. The acquisition was
made for setting up a factory for manufacturing of glazed tiles etc.
The acquisition was challenged on the ground that there was no
urgency in the matter and, therefore, there was no justification for
having recourse to Section 17 and deprive the appellant of the
benefit of Section 5A of the Act. Rejecting the challenge to the
acquisition, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court inter alia observed as
under:
"The fact that the State Government or the
party concerned was lethargic at an earlier
stage is not very relevant for deciding the
question whether on the date on which the
notification was issued, there was urgency or
not. The conclusion of the Government in a
given case that there was urgency was entitled
to weight, if not conclusive."
In the case before us, it cannot be denied that there was
urgent need of land; on the day decision was taken by Lt.
Governor, to invoke urgency provisions and dispense with enquiry
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
under Section 5A. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by him can‟t be
disturbed, except for very strong reasons.
24. In Chameli Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and
Another, (1996) (2) SCC 549, land was acquired for providing
houses to Scheduled Castes. The appellants challenged the
validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the exercise of
the power given under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4).
Dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A, was challenged on
the ground that there was no urgency to take possession and there
was pre and post notification delay of more than three years. As
regards urgency provision, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court inter alia
held as under:
"It is settled law that the opinion of urgency
formed by the appropriate Government to take
immediate possession is a subjective conclusion
based on the material before it and it is entitled
to great weight unless it is vitiated, by mala
fides or colourable exercise of power."
In the present case, there are no grounds to hold that the
decision taken by the Lt. Governor was actuated by malafide,
personal or legal, or was a colourable exercise of power.
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
25. As regards, delay in acquisition, the Hon‟ble Court in
Chameli Devi‟s case, observed as under:
"The pre-notification and post-notification delay
cause by the officer concerned does not create a
cause to hold that there is no urgency"
"Very often delay makes the problem more and
more acute and increases urgency of the
necessity for acquisition."
"In Narayan Govind Gavate case a three-Judge
Bench of this Court had held that Section 17(4)
cannot be read in isolation from Section 4(1)
and Section 5-A of the Act. Although 30 days
from the notification under Section 4(1) are
given for filing objections under Section 5-A,
inquiry thereunder unduly gets prolonged."
"Very often the officials, due to apathy in
implementation of the policy and programmes
of the Government, themselves adopt dilatory
tactics to create cause for the owner of the
land to challenge the validity or legality of the
exercise of the power to defeat the urgency
existing on the date of taking decision under
Section 17(4) to dispense with Section 5-A
inquiry"
"It is true that there was pre-notification and
post-notification delay on the part of the
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
officers to finalise and publish the notification.
But those facts were present before the
Government when it invoked urgency clause
and dispensed with inquiry under Section 5-A.
As held by this Court, the delay by itself
accelerates the urgency: Larger the delay,
greater be the urgency."
In the present case, all the facts and circumstances were
available to the Lt. Governor, when he passed order to invoke
Section 17 and dispense with enquiry under Section 5A. The file
on which he passed the order, contained all material documents
and relevant facts. Therefore, delays, if any, or on the part of
officers of Govt. as of DMRC, by itself could not have been a
sufficient decision, for declining to invoke urgency provision and
thereby delay the project at a crucial stage, when the work was
held up for want of land of petitioners. In any case, the conclusion
of Lt. Governor being subjective, must be upheld, in absence of any
malafide or arbitrariness.
26. In Deepak Pahwa and Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and
Ors., 1984 (4) SCC 308, a combined notification under Section 4
and 17 and declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act
was published with regard to acquisition of Land for construction
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
of new transmitting station for Delhi Airport. A writ petition was
filed, impugning the notification and declaration on the grounds
that a period of eight years was spent in inter-departmental
discussion which showed that there was no urgency necessitating
the emergency of Land Acquisition Act to dispense with the
enquiry under Section 5A. Rejecting the contention, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court inter alia observed as under:
"Very often persons interested in the land
proposed to be acquired make various
representations to the concerned authorities
against the proposed acquisition. This is bound
to result in a multiplicity of enquiries,
communications and discussions leading
invariably to delay in the execution of even
urgent projects. Very often the delay makes the
problem more and more acute and increases the
urgency of the necessity of acquisition. It is,
therefore, not possible to agree with the
invocation of the urgency provisions void."
27. In Union of India And Others vs. Praveen Gupta And
Others, (1997) 9 SCC 78, land was acquired invoking the urgency
question contained in Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. It
was contended before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that there was
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
no real urgency in the matter and the respondents could have been
given an opportunity to contend that the land was not needed for
any public purpose. Rejecting the challange, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court noted as under:
"If the enquiry was conducted, delay would
defeat the very public purpose of acquisition for
shifting of timber business from the walled city
and establishment of the timber depots outside
the walled city. Therfore, the urgency
mentioned in exercising the power under
Section 4(1) was justified."
As regards, scope of the power of the Court to examine the
decision of the Government in invoking urgency provision, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It is now settled legal position that decision on
urgency is an administrative decision and is a
matter of subjective satisfaction of the
appropriate Government on the basis of the
material available on record."
28. In Union of India And Others vs. Mukesh Hans, (2004)
8 SCC 14, a judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioners, land was sought to be acquired for holding a festival
called „phoolwalon ki sair‟ in Mehrauli. The notification issued
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
under Land Acquisition Act mentioned the public purpose as "Land
Development, Delhi". Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was
also dispensed with.
During the course of the judgment, the Hon‟ble Court inter
alia observed as under:
"A careful perusal of this provision which is an
exception to the normal mode of acquisition
contemplated under the Act shows that mere
existence of urgency or unforeseen emergency
though is a condition precedent for invoking
Section 17(4), that by itself is not sufficient to
direct the dispensation of the Section 5-A
inquiry. It requires an opinion to be formed by
the Government concerned that along with the
existence of such urgency or unforeseen
emergency there is also a need for dispensing
with Section 5-A inquiry which indicates that the
legislature intended the appropriate
Government to apply its mind before dispensing
with Section 5-A inquiry. It also indicates that
mere existence of an urgency under Section
17(1) or unforeseen emergency under Section
17(2) would not by itself be sufficient for
dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry.
..........
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
"It is possible in a given case the urgency
noticed by the appropriate Government under
Section 17(1) or the unforeseen emergency
under Section 17(2)itself may be of such degree
that it could require the appropriate
Government on that very basis to dispense with
the inquiry under Section 5-A inquiry is inherent
in the two types of urgencies contemplated
under Sections 17(1) and (2) of the Act.
............
"At this stage, it is relevant to notice that the
limited right given to an owner/person
interested under Section 5-A of the Act to object
to the acquisition proceedings is not an empty
formality and is a substantive right, which can
be taken away for good and valid reason and
within the limitations prescribed under Section
17(4) of the Act."
On facts, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court found as under:
"The facts of the present case as found from the
records show that the Anjuman-Saire-e-Gul-
Faroshan, the Committee that organises this
festival was using some land in Village Mehrauli
for conducting its concluding ceremony. It is for
this purpose it sought 4000 sq. Yards of land in
Khasra Nos. 1151/3(new) and 1665(old) of the
said village. It is also found from the record that
ever since the revival of the festival the
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
concluding programme was being continued in a
piece of land situated in the said khasra of
Mehrauli village which is now sought to be
acquired along with certain other lands. There
is no material on record to show that either the
said festival has been discontinued for want of
land or the owners of the land where the festival
has its concluding ceremony are preventing the
utilisation of that land for the said purpose. We
have also noticed hereinabove that an earlier
attempt to acquire 40 bighas of the land for the
very same purpose was allowed to be lapsed by
the authorities concerned by efflux of time
which was also a relevant factor to be taken note
of by the Lt. Governor when he took the decision
to dispense with the Section 5A inquiry but the
same was not placed before him. These facts
coupled with the findings of the High Court that
in almost all the notings in the file there is no
reference to the need for invoking Section 17(4),
indicates that the Lt. Governor was not apprised,
of all the necessary and relevant facts before he
took the decision in question. Therefore, in our
opinion, the findings of the High Court that the
decision of the Lt. Governor to dispense with the
Section 5-A inquiry suffered from the vice of
non-application of mind has to be upheld."
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
The Hon‟ble Court made it very clear in paragraph 37 of the
judgment that consideration of these facts by them was not for the
purpose of finding out whether the stated public purpose was in
reality a public purpose or not nor was it for the purpose of finding
out whether there was an urgency, but, was limited to the
question of whether there was any material available before the
Lt. Governor pursuant to whose orders Section 4(1) Notification
stated that Section 5A enquiry was dispensed with. However, the
facts of the case before us are altogether different. We find, from a
perusal of the file that there was material available before the Lt.
Governor which justified invocation of urgency provisions of Land
Acquisition Act as Mehrauli-Gurgaon, Corridor of Metro Railways
was required to be completed before commencement of
Commonwealth Games 2010. Even in the case of Mukesh Hans
(supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court did not deny the power of the
Government to invoke urgency provisions and dispense with
enquiry under Section 5A of the Act if there was material placed in
this regard before a Lt. Governor. It was only in the facts of the
case that dispensing with enquiry was held to be suffering from
non-application of mind.
29. In Sheikhar Hotels Gulmohar Enclave vs. State of U.P.,
AIR 2008 SC 2284, the land was sought to be acquired for
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
establishing Transport Nagar in the National Capital Region.
Under the Regional Plan of N.C.R Planning, National Highway
No.91 was proposed to be made a four-lane road. Upholding the
notification of urgency provision and dispensing with enquiry
under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court inter alia observed as under:
"There is no gainsaying in the fact that this
right to file objection under Section 5-A is a
valuable right and the Governments are not
given a free hand to dispense with Section 5-A.
Section 5-A is only a safeguard against the
arbitrary exercise of the power by the State.
But one should also not lose sight of the fact
that invocation of such a provision is also
sometimes imperative as in order to meet the
urgency of the situation it needs to be invoked
in public interest. It depends upon case to case.
..............
"In the present case, there is no two opinions
that because of the globalization of Indian
economy is progressing with fast speed.
Therefore, in order to keep pace with the speed,
invocation of Section 5-A has become
imperative. Traffic congestion is a common
experience of one and all and it is very difficult
to negotiate with the traffic congestion in Delhi
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
and National Capital region. Therefore, in the
present situation, it cannot be said that the
invocation of Section 5-A was for ulterior
purpose or was arbitrary exercise of the power."
.......
"There is need for decongestion of the traffic
and it realy the dire need of the hour and
earliest it is implemented, better for the people
at large."
........
Dealing with its decisions in the case of Mukesh Hans
(supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"But in the present case the notification was
struck down on the facts that no material was
placed on record and secondly, it was also held
that discontinuance of festival for want of land
and any hindrance in using the land was not
there. It was also pointed out that earlier an
attempt was made to acquire the land for the
very same purpose for holding such festival and
it was allowed to lapse by efflux of time and
consequently the Court found that there was no
reference in the file to the need of invoking
Section 17(4) of the Act was vitiated by non-
application of mind by the authorities.
Therefore, this case was decided on the
question of fact."
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
It would be pertinent to note here that Hon‟ble Mr.
Justice A.K.Mathur, who delivered the judgment in the case of
Sheikhar Hotels (supra), was also a Member of the Bench
which decided the case of Mukesh Hans (supra).
30. In Rajasthan Housing Board (supra), land was
acquired for construction of houses for weaker sections and
middle income group people. Repelling the challenge to
invocation of emergency clause and dispensing of enquiry
under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court held as under:
"If must be remembered that the satisfaction
under Section 17(4) is a subjective one and that
so long as there is material upon which the
Government could have formed the said
satisfaction fairly, the Court would not interfere
nor would it examine the material as an
appellate authority. This is the principle
affirmed by decisions of this Court not under
Section 17(4) but also generally with respect to
subjective satisfaction."
31. In First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. V. Nirodhi
Prakash Gangoli and Anr., 2002 (4) SCC 160, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court held that invoking urgency powers u/s 17(1) and
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
(4) of Land Acquisition Act was a matter of substantive satisfaction
of the government with which the court would not ordinarily
interfere unless it comes to the conclusion that the appropriate
authority had not applied its mind to the relevant factors or that
the decision taken by the appropriate authority was malafide. The
following observations made by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this
regard are pertinent:
"The question of urgency of an acquisition
under Sections 17(1) and (4) of the Act is a
matter of subjective satisfaction of the
Government and ordinarily it is not open to the
court to make a scrutiny of the propriety of that
satisfaction on an objective appraisal of facts.
In this view of the matter when the Government
takes a decision, taking all relevant
considerations into account and is satisfied that
there exists emergency for invoking powers
under Sections 17(1) and (4) of the Act, and
issues notification accordingly, the same should
not be interfered with by the court unless the
court comes to the conclusion that the
appropriate authority had not applied its mind
to the relevant factors or that the decision has
been taken by the appropriate authority mala
fide. Whether in a given situation there existed
urgency or not is left to the discretion and
decision of the authorities concerned. If an
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
order invoking power under Section 17(4) is
assailed, the courts may enquire whether the
appropriate authority had all the relevant
materials before it or whether the order has
been passed by non-application of mind. Any
post-notification delay subsequent to the
decision of the State Government dispensing
with an enquiry under Section 5-A by invoking
powers under Section 17(1) of the Act would not
invalidate the decision itself specially when no
mala fides on the part of the Government or its
officers are alleged."
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the recent
decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mahinder Pal & Ors.
Vs. State of Haryana. In that case, a notification under Section 4
read with Section 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act was issued for
acquisition of land for development and utilisation for outer ring
road. A writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the
writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed in limine. The
matter came before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Allowing the
appeal and remitting the matter back to the High Court for fresh
consideration on merits, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court inter alia
observed as under:
"Right to file objection and hearing thereof to a
notification issued by the appropriate
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
government expressing its intention to acquire a
property is a valuable right. Such a valuable
right of hearing and particularly in a case of this
nature could have been taken away only if
conditions precedent for exercise of this
emergency power stood satisfied. Sub-section
(4) of Section 17 of the Act is an exception to
Section 5A of the Act. An opinion of the
government in this behalf is required to be
formed if there exists an emergency. Existence
of the foundational fact for invoking the
aforementioned provision is, therefore, a sine
qua non for formation of opinion. Such a
subjective satisfaction must be based on an
objective criteria. Ipse dixit on the part of the
State would not serve the purpose. Appellants,
in our opinion, had made out a case for
examination of their cases in details. The
nature of constructions and other features of
the land sought to be acquired have been
noticed by us hereinbefore."
The Hon‟ble Court also referred to its decision in the case of
Mukesh Hans (supra) as well as to an earlier decision in Union of
India vs. Krishan Lal Aneja, 2004(8) SCC 453, the following
observations made in the case of Krishan Lal Aneja were quoted
by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
"16. Section 17 confers extraordinary powers on
the authorities under which it can dispense with
the normal procedure laid down under Section
5A of the Act in exceptional case of urgency.
Such powers cannot be lightly resorted to
except in case of real urgency enabling the
Government to take immediate possession of the
land proposed to be acquired for public
purpose. A public purpose, however, laudable it
may be, by itself is not sufficient to take aid of
Section 17 to use this extraordinary power as
use of such power deprives a land owner of his
right in relation to immoveable property to file
objections for the proposed acquisition and it
also dispenses with the inquiry under Section
5A of the Act. The Authority must have
subjective satisfaction of the need for invoking
urgency clause under Section 17 keeping in
mind the nature of the public purpose, real
urgency that the situation demands and the
time factor i.e. whether taking possession of the
property can wait for a minimum period within
which the objections could be received from the
land owners and the inquiry under Section 5A of
the Act could be completed. In other words, if
power under Section 17 is not exercised, the
very purpose for which the land is being
acquired urgently would be frustrated or
defeated. Normally urgency to acquire a land
for public purpose does not arise suddenly or
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
overnight but sometimes such urgency may
arise unexpectedly, exceptionally or
extraordinarily depending on situations such as
due to earthquake, flood or some specific time-
bound project where the delay is likely to render
the purpose nugatory or infructuous. A citizen‟s
property can be acquired in accordance with
law but in the absence of real and genuine
urgency, it may not be appropriate to deprive an
aggrieved party of a fair and just opportunity of
putting forth its objections for due consideration
of the acquiring authority. While applying the
urgency clause, the State should indeed act with
due care and responsibility. Invoking urgency
clause cannot be a substitute or support for the
laxity, lethargy or lack of care on the part of the
State Administration."
In the above noted case also, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
recognized to urgency provisions in cases of time-bound project
where the delay is likely to render the purpose nugatory or
infructuous. In the present case also, the land is sought to be
acquired for construction of Mehrauli -Gurgaon, phase of metro,
which is a time bound project, to be completed before
Commonwealth Games, 2010 and, therefore, cannot brook any
delay. Therefore, this judgment is of no help to the petitioner in
the facts and circumstances of the present case. A perusal of
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
judgment in Krishan Lal Aneja (supra) would show that in the
case before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, Union works and Housing
Minister had assured the Lok Sabha, way back on 28.3.1995, that
the Government would return to the requisitioned properties
within two years or acquire them permanently after paying
compensation. The Minister informed that he had written letter to
the concerned for making arrangements for vacating or
permanently acquiring the properties within next two years. The
properties in question continued to be in possession of the
Government. There was no urgency to take possession nor was
any threat of immediate dispossession of the appellants from the
properties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was found
that the authorities could have completed acquisition proceedings
within normal course without resorting to Section 17(1) and 17(4)
of the Act. It was noted that the Authorities were aware that the
properties were to be released or acquired and the maximum
period was extended upto two years for the purpose. From 1985 to
1987 they had sufficient time to acquire the properties in question
in the usual course. They had enough time to provide opportunity
for filing objections and holding inquiry under Section 5A of the
Act. In these circumstances, the Hon‟ble Court found that there
was no need to dispense with Section 5A of the Act. The appellants
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
were fully aware that they had to make arrangements either for
acquiring the properties or de- requisitioning them by making
alternate arrangement within a period of two years i.e. upto
10.3.1987 inasmuch as no further extension of the Requisitioning
Act was possible. In these circumstances, acquisition of properties
in question by way of notification issued on 6.3.1987 was held to be
bad in law. However, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the
view taken by the High Court that the acquisition could not be
sustained without expression of urgency in the impugned
notification itself was not correct.
33. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred Banwari
Lal & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., 1991(1) DRJ
(Suppl.) 317. In that case, acquisition of a building in Daryaganj,
Delhi, acquisitioned under Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of
Immovable Properties Act, was to lapse on 10.3.1987. On 6.3.1987,
the Delhi Administration issued a Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act under Section 17(1) of the Act, invoking
urgency provisions. The purpose for acquisition mentioned in
Notification was "residential use of government servants." The
Delhi Administration thereafter proposed to the petitioners that
the building be given on lease and the negotiations continued. The
respondents prolonged the negotiations for the lease, only
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
promising that after the lease Deed was entered into the
possession would be handed over to the petitioners. The Officers
of Delhi Administration continued to stay in the buildings for over
20 months The Delhi Administration suddenly decided to proceed
with the land acquisition proceedings after a period of 20 months.
Thus. they had sufficient time to make alternate arrangement for
the residence of their officers and there was no urgency
whatsoever for invoking the provisions of Section 17(1). It was,
therefore, held that the provisions of Section 17(1) cannot be
utilised to cover up the laxity or lethargy of the Administration to
take appropriate steps in time for making available alternate
accommodation for its officers and there was no urgency
whatsoever for invoking the provisions of Section 17(1). In fact,
the notification acquiring properties in question was a common
notification in case of Banwari Lal & Krishan Lal Aneja. The facts
of the present case being altogether different, this judgment is of
no help to the petitioners. In the present case, there has been no
delay after issue of notifications.
34. Even if we presume that keeping the urgency of requirement
in mind, the respondents could have acted more expeditiously, we
do not find any justification for quashing the acquisition on this
ground alone, particularly, when there has been no delay on the
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
part of DMRC in moving the Government and pursuing the matter
with it from time to time. An important and prestigious project
like Mehrauli - Gurgaon Corridor or MRTS cannot be stalled
merely because the Government machinery could possibly have
acted more expeditiously then it has actually moved. Public
interest is the paramount consideration in such matters and
cannot be ignored. The purpose of establishing metro network in
Delhi is to remove traffic congestion and reduce environmental
pollution by limiting reducing vehicular traffic on the roads. It is
in the interest of the citizens of Delhi that the Metro Project is
completed expeditiously and within the time frame fixed for the
purpose. The Commonwealth Games are scheduled to be held in
Delhi next year. It would be endeavour of DMRC, as far as
possible, to complete this prestigious project before
commencement of the Games so that there are no bottle-necks and
traffic snarls in the city during the Games. If there is a conflict in
private/individual interest and public interest, which is common to
all citizens, the private/individual interest must yield to the public
interest.
35. As regards dispensing with the inquiry envisaged under
Section 5 of Land Acquisition Act, as noted earlier by us, the entire
relevant material was placed before Lt. Governor before he passed
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
an order directing issue of notification under Sections 4, 6 and 17
of Land Acquisition Act and to dispense with the inquiry. Since
the work on this part of the Corridor is held up only on account of
non availability of land in question to DMRC and delay of even
days can be fatal to the timely completion of the project, the Lt.
Governor, in our view, was imminently justified in dispensing with
the inquiry envisaged under Section 5A of the Act. Had the Lt.
Governor not dispensed with inquiry envisaged under Section 5A
of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector would have been
required to give 30 days‟ time to file objection. Consideration and
disposal of the objection would also have taken considerable time.
We have to take a realistic view of the matter in this regard and
therefore we are agree that it would not have been possible to give
hearing to the objectors and dispose of the objections within a
short time after expiry of last date for receipt of objections. In
fact, the requirement of DMRC for this land is so urgent that the
respondents were justified in saving every day they could, in
completing the process of acquisition. In any case, it was for the
Lt. Governor, to decide, on the basis of the material made
available to him on file, as to whether dispensing with inquiry was
to be ordered or not. The court, in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution would not interfere with the
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
subjective satisfaction of the Lt. Governor and cannot go behind it,
so long as it finds that the relevant material was placed before him
at the time he applied his mind and took an appropriate decision.
The decision taken by the Lt. Governor, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be tainted with non
application of mind nor can it be said to be arbitrary or wholly
unreasonable. Even if two views were possible, on the basis of the
material placed before the Lt. Governor, the court would not
interfere with the decision taken by him unless it was shown that
the decision was mala fide or was based on extraneous
consideration. In the present case, there are no allegations of
mala fide either against the Lt. Governor or against any particular
officer of the respondents and the decision is not based upon any
extraneous or irrelevant consideration.
36. Now, we come to the last contention of the petitioners that
DDA land being available in the vicinity, land of the petitioner
could not have been acquired. The affidavit dated 19th August,
2009 filed by DDA along with Aks Shajra of village Mehrauli and
Sultanpur Mehrauli, would show that land in question has been
shown in red colour in this document. The land which has already
been allotted by DDA to DMRC has been shown in blue colour
whereas the land which is still in possession of DDA has been
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
shown in green colour in this document. The land shown in yellow
colour is under litigation in SLP (C) No. 14047/05 before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court and in view of the undertaking given by it,
the DDA cannot allot this land to DMRC. The land shown in brown
colour is the balance land which is the subject matter of Civil
Appeal No. 2418-19/08 and 2729/08. A bare perusal of the Aks
Shajra would show that the Metro Track has to pass right through
the land of the petitioners. There is no way Metro Track can be
completed without it passing through this land.
37. As regards land of DDA, the Conservator of Forest, who
inspected the same along with Director (LM-I) of DDA and other
offices, in the presence of the petitioners, would show that this
land is comprised in Reserved Park as per MPD 2021 and has also
been notified as a Reserved Forest vide notification No. F.10 (42)-
I/PA/DCF/93/2012-17(1) dated 24.5.1994. The Conservator of
Forest has specifically stated that this DDA land is a forest land.
The affidavit filed by DDA also admits that on inspection it was
verified that the land of DDA falls in reserved park and reserved
forest, South Central ridge.
A perusal of notification No.F.10(42)-1/PA/PCF/93/2012-
17(1) dated 24th May, 1994 shows that vide this notification, Lt.
Governor of the Delhi declared the lands mentioned in Schedule A
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
of the Notification as Reserved Forest. Schedule A would show
that all forests land and waste land which is the property of the
government, over which government has propriety rights, in South
Central Ridge in Delhi surrounded by Qutab Institutional Area in
North, Vasant Kunj, Kishan Ganj in South, Aurobindo Marg, Nazari
Lal Bagh in East and by Jawahar Lal University Road, Vasant Kunj,
Mehrauli in West has been declared as Reserved Forests. The
area in South Central Ridge comprises approximately 626
hectares. It was contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that since notification u/s 20 of Forests Act has not
been issued and Khasra-wise details of the land, subject matter of
this notification have not been ascertained as is evident from the
reply sent to the petitioners on their application under RTI Act,
this land cannot be said to be Reserved Forest, and therefore, can
be allotted by DDA to DMRC. We find no merit in this contention.
Section 5 of Forests Act provides that after the issue of the
notification u/s 4, no fresh clearing for cultivation or for any other
purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such
Rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.
Therefore, once notification u/s 4 has been issued, no tree can be
cut and no construction activity can be carried out in respect of
the land comprised in the notification, unless permission by the
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
State Government is obtained in accordance with the Rules made
in this behalf. In view of the clear language of Section 5 even on
mere issuance of notification u/s 4 and in absence of notification
u/s 20 declaring finally certain areas as reserved forests, a status
quo is to be maintained and DMRC can neither cut trees nor carry
out any construction on it without requisite permission. If anyone
commits breach of Section 5 of the Act, he is liable to punishment
under Section 26(a) thereof. The joint survey carried out by
Conservator of Forests and DDA, in the presence of the petitioners
is a sufficient proof of DDA land shown in green colour in the Aks
Shajra filed by DDA being the land notified under the notification
No.F.10(42)-1/PA/PCF/93/2012-17(1) dated 24th May, 1994, and
therefore, final identification by Khasra Number would not be
necessary for the purpose of deciding whether this land can be
made available by DDA to DMRC. Once it is reported by
Conservator of Forests and is admitted by DDA that this particular
piece of land is covered under the Notification No.F.10(42)-
1/PA/PCF/93/2012-17(1) dated 24th May, 1994, the petitioner who
is a stranger, as far as this land is concerned, cannot be allowed to
dispute the factual position stated by Conservator of Forests and
DDA. DDA being the land owning agency of this land is not
expected to act against its own interest and admit, a land, which is
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
not subject matter of a notification u/s 4 of Forests Act, to be
reserved forests. Moreover Section 2(1) of Forests Conservation
Act, 1980 specifically provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State,
no State Government or other authority shall, except with the prior
approval of the Central Government, make any order directing
that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any
non-forests purpose. Therefore, DDA has no authority to allot a
forest land to DMRC without prior approval of the Central
Government. That precisely is the reason why Central
Government, on the recommendations of CEC and pursuant to the
orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, based on the
recommendations of CEC, granted permission for its use by DMRC
for non-forest purposes and pursuant thereto the land shown in
blue colour in the Aks Shajra filed by DDA was allotted by it to
DMRC for this very project. The restriction imposed by Section 2
on use of first land for non-forest purpose applies to all forests and
is not confined to reserved forests only. This proposition of law
was also accepted by Allahabad High Court in Yashwant Stone
Works v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1988 Allahabad 121.
The word „forest‟ has been used in a general sense which
means that all lands bearing vegetable associations demarcated by
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
trees of any size exploited or not, capable of producing wood or
other forest products of exerting an influence on the climate or
water regime or providing shelter for livestock and wild life. This
definition has been given by Food and Agricultural Organizations
of United Nations. The expression "forest land" has not been
defined in the Act but it can be understood as a wild area covered
with trees and developing saplings along with pastures or any
other area declared by the State as forest land. Therefore, we
agree that DDA land, shown in green colour in Aks - Shajra filed
by DDA cannot be directed to be allotted to DMRC.
38. As per the plans prepared by DMRC for this project,
Chhatarpur Metro Station, including the running section,
entry/exit area, road modification and staircase of Food Bridge via
Duct and electric sub-station are to come up on land in question.
The plan prepared by DMRC in this regard has already been
approved by Central Empowered Committee of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India and was also filed before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court, along with the application of DMRC for vacation of status
quo order. DMRC expressly stated before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court that the route proposed for construction of Phase II of MRTS
Project has been thoroughly investigated by it and the same has
proved to be the most feasible route economically and for the
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
purpose of ridership etc. Once a particular route has been decided
by DMRC after examining all aspects including economic
feasibility and expected ridership, it is not for the court to sit in
appeal over the decision of DMRC and take a different view. The
question as to which place is most suitable for a particular portion
of the project is a technical matter, required to be decided by the
experts. The courts do not have the expertise or information
which is necessarily required for deciding such matters. The
petitioners have not given any valid ground for shifting the route
decided by DMRC and the location selected by it for constructing
Chhatarpur Metro Station and Electric Sub-Station. The only plea
taken by them is that since DDA land is available in the vicinity,
private land belonging to them should not be acquired. We find no
merit in this argument. As noted earlier, DDA land which is shown
in green colour in the Aks-Shajra filed by DDA is forest land and,
therefore, DDA has no authority to allot it to DMRC without prior
approval of the government. In any case, mere availability of DDA
land in the vicinity cannot be a good ground for quashing the
notification which has otherwise been validly issued under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Neither DDA can be compelled
to allot this land to DMRC nor can DMRC be asked to shift its
track or station or even electric sub-station to the land of DDA. If
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
DMRC is asked at this stage to consider feasibility of using DDA
land, seek approval of the government and then ask DDA to allot
the same to it, that would be a very lengthy process and would
cause unacceptable delay in completion of the bridge even if it is
found that it is feasible to use the land of DDA for the purpose for
which land in question is sought to be used by DMRC.
39. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the approval granted by the Central Government for this
project envisaged use of government land only as is evident from
para (iii) of the order dated 4th December, 2006 whereby sanction
of the President was accorded for this project. We have perused
the order issued by the government. The order nowhere excludes
use of private land for the purpose of the project. This order only
says that land belonging to various Ministries/Departments as well
as autonomous/statutory bodies/agencies which is required for
Delhi portion of the Project will be taken over by GOI/GNCTD at
inter-departmental transferral rates. The correct interpretation of
this order would be that those portion of the land which belong to
Ministries/Departments, autonomous/statutory bodies/agencies
would be transferred at inter-departmental transferral rates and
not at market rates, to DMRC. It does not exclude use of private
land if otherwise required for the project.
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
40. It has been alleged by the petitioners that DMRC was
unwilling to use DDA land as the said land would be given on
leasehold basis and cannot be used for commercial purposes. We
find no merit in this plea. A perusal of the approval granted by
Central Empowerment Committee of this project would show that
one of the conditions imposed by the Committee was that the area
falling within the Delhi region shall not be used for any
commercial purpose by DMRC or any other party. It further
stipulated that part of the area should be used as Ridge
Interpretation Centre, in order to reflect the rich ecology of the
area, educate the public at large and increase the awareness of
the people towards the vital attributes of Delhi ridge. In view of
the conditions imposed by Central Empowerment Committee,
DMRC is precluded from using the land in this area for commercial
purpose irrespective of whether it uses the land acquired from the
petitioner or it uses the land which is available with DDA.
Therefore, it cannot be accepted that DMRC was unwilling to take
DDA land on account of restriction on its use for commercial
purposes. In fact, had DDA land been available for this purpose,
DMRC would have been more than happy as it would not have
been compelled to litigate with the petitioners and the project also
would not have been delayed. DMRC is keen to have land in
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
question only because it is the most suitable land for this part of
the project.
41. At the conclusion of arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioners stated, on instructions, that the petitioners were ready
to forgo that much land as was required for metro tracks and
Chhatarpur Metro Station provided that the electric sub-station is
shifted to some other land and that part of the petitioners‟ land,
which was sought to be used for electric sub-station, is allowed to
be retained by the petitioners.
As we have noted earlier the only other land available in the
vicinity is DDA land shown in green colour in the akshajra and the
same is forest land as well as subject matter of the notification
issued u/s 4 of Forests Act. Moreover, no study has been carried
out to ascertain whether this land can be used for electricity sub-
station required by DMRC in this stretch of the corridor or not. As
noted earlier even if such a study is carried out and it is found that
DDA land can be used for this purpose, that cannot be allotted to
DMRC without obtaining necessary approvals including permission
from the government and the whole process, if undertaken would
take considerable time, resulting in unacceptable delay. Such an
exercise if undertaken would inevitably result in project not being
completed before Common Wealth Games, 2010 and, therefore,
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
cannot be directed. We, therefore, cannot direct exclusion of any
part of land of the petitioners which is subject matter of
notifications challenged by the petitioners.
In Summit Inport Services Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation and Ors. WP(C) No. 573/2008 decided on 11th April,
2008, a Division Bench of this court held that the court sitting in
its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is ill-equipped to sit in judgment
over the view taken by the experts and choice of location of a
project is a matter ordinarily within the administrative discretion
of the government. A writ court would not sit in judgment over
them or embark upon an exercise to determine the locational
advantages and disadvantages of the project at one or the other
place. Interference in the matter of such decisions may be called
for only in the cases of patent perversity or irrationality. The court
may be induced to examine the validity of any such decision only in
case it is shown to be so outrageously illogical that no person of
ordinary prudence would countenance the same. Simply because
another side may be equally good or even better is no reason for
the court to interfere with the decision already taken by the
authorities. In this case also, we cannot sit in judgment over the
location selected by DMRC and cannot interfere with the decision
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
taken by the experts. Selection of location is a matter exclusively
in the domain of experts and should continue to rest with them.
For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the writ
petition and CM are dismissed. Interim order is vacated.
(V.K. JAIN)
JUDGE
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
JUDGE
September 8, 2009.
'sk'/'sn'/acm'
Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. V Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
