Santosh Rani vs Union Of India And Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 3933 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 12th August, 2011.

+                         W.P.(C) 5838/2011

%      SANTOSH RANI                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. Yashovanta Das, Sr. Adv. with
                                        Mr. Rahul Sharma & Ms. Pooja
                                        Sharma, Advocates.

                                 Versus

    UNION OF INDIA AND ANR                   ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amit Chaddha, Adv. for R-1 UOI
                           Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for R-2 DDA.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may               Yes
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?              Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported             Yes
       in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition seeks mandamus for considering the representation dated

28th April, 2011 of the petitioner for release of her land acquired in

pursuance to a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 of the year 1959 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of the year

1966.

2. The petitioner had challenged the acquisition by filling a writ petition

in this Court but without any success. The petitioner thereafter in the year

1996 filed representations for release of her land and in 1997 again filed a

writ petition in this court seeking direction to the respondents to consider her

representation. Such directions were issued and vide letter dated 27 th June,

1997, the representation of the petitioner was rejected.

3. The petitioner filed yet another writ petition challenging the said

rejection of the representation but which writ petition was withdrawn.

Thereafter another writ petition was filed in the year 2002 seeking direction

either for release of the land or for allotment of an alternative plot. The said

writ petition was also disposed of with a direction to the respondents to

consider the case of the petitioner for alternative plot. Upon her application

for alternative plot being rejected, yet another writ petition was filed seeking

compensation and solatium.

4. The senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

representation of the petitioner for release of land was rejected earlier solely

on the ground that the surrounding lands were also being acquired. It is

contended that now from the reply to the RTI query it has been learnt that

the proposal for acquisition of surrounding land has been dropped. The

contention of the petitioner is that though the land of the petitioner was

acquired for planned development of Delhi but has for the last so many years

been not used for the said purpose; rather unauthorized colonies have came

up on the neighbouring land and regularization thereof is under

consideration; it is contended that thus there is no possibility of use of the

land for any planned development and the petitioner should not be deprived

of her land when the purpose of acquisition stands frustrated.

5. The counsel for the respondent no.2 DDA appearing on advance

notice has contended that upon the acquisition being completed and the

possession of land having been taken over, there is no right left in the

petitioner in the land to make any such representation. He has contended

that Section 48 is the only provision in the Act for de-notification but which

can also be invoked only till the acquisition is not complete and possession

has not been taken over.

6. The senior counsel for the petitioner also does not controvert the said

position. His claim is however on the premise of the petitioner being

deprived of her property without the purpose of acquisition being achieved.

7. If the contention of the petitioner were to be accepted, no acquisition

would ever attain finality and challenge thereto would be made at any time

averring that the purpose of acquisition has not been achieved. It is not as if

the said aspect has not been considered in the present case. As aforesaid, the

petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition. The petitioner has

thereafter also filed several litigations and after 50 years cannot say that the

land should be restored and/or the acquisition scrapped.

8. As far as the contention of the petitioner, of the land having not been

used for the planned development of Delhi is concerned, the counsel for the

respondent no.2 DDA has invited attention to the letter dated 27 th June, 1997

rejecting the earlier representation of the petitioner and where it is stated that

the said land upon acquisition stands transferred to the Horticulture

Department of the DDA for maintenance as "green"; it is a part of the green

belt as per MPD-2001 and as per directions of the Apex Court in W.P.(C)

No.4677/1985 titled Sh. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, no construction

activity is permitted on the said land. The counsel for the respondent DDA

has contended that the maintenance of the land as green is also part of the

planned development of Delhi and it cannot be said that the land is not being

used for the purpose for which it was acquired.

9. The aforesaid part has not been controverted by the petitioner in the

petition. There can be no dispute with the proposition that maintenance of

such green land in the city is a part of the planned development of Delhi.

10. The senior counsel for the petitioner has however invited attention to

Hari Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC 621 where relief was granted

for the reason of land of others similarly situated as the petitioners therein

having been released from acquisition. However a perusal of the said

judgment shows that upon challenge to the acquisition having been made, a

committee had been constituted to go into the question and the said

committee was found to have released some land and not other, without any

rationale and on this ground the acquisition was quashed. The said judgment

cannot be a precedent for enabling challenge to acquisition after acquisition

has attained finality.

11. There is also merit in the contention of the respondent no.2 DDA that

the petitioner, after seeking fruits of acquisition cannot ask for release of

land from acquisition.

12. The senior counsel has contended that the petitioner is only seeking

consideration of her representation.

13. A direction for consideration of representation can be issued only

when the petitioner has a right to consideration of his/her representation and

the "authority" owes a duty/obligation to consider such representations and

pass speaking orders thereon. The "authority" cannot be mandated to deal

with representations, without any obligation to do so. If such directions

were to be issued without even the "authority" owing such duty, the precious

time of governmental authorities will be wasted in such wasteful exercise

only.

14. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No order

as to costs.

CM No.11861/2011 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 12, 2011 bs