Yashbir Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 279 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                             Date of decision: 18.01.2011



+               WP (C) No.189/2011 and CM No.344/2011


YASHBIR SINGH                                           ...PETITIONER

                Through:        Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with
                                Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate

                                         Versus


LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.                                    ...RESPONDENTS


                Through:        Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with
                                Mr. Vivek Mohanty, Adv. for R. 1,2 &3
                                Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for R.4/DDA
                                Ms. Sweety Manchanda, Adv. for R.5
                                Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Adv. for R.6.

CORAM:


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?                             No

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?                              No

3.      Whether the judgment should be                                  No
        reported in the Digest?


SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1. The land of the petitioner is sought to be acquired under the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894( hereinafter referred

to as „the Act‟). The petitioner wanted to set up a retail outlet

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

dealership of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as „HPCL‟) on his land and applied for the

said purpose to the HPCL. The LOI was issued on 17.08.2004 to

the petitioner and an enquiry was made about the status of the

land of the petitioner by the HPCL. On 26.10.2004, it was

informed by the LAC that the land was free from notification

under Sections 4 & 6 of the said Act. Pursuant to this, the

petitioner was required to deposit the land conversion charges,

which was deposited on 01.12.2004.

2. Unfortunately, for the petitioner prior to the deposit of the

said amount and certain other communications, on 04.11.2004 a

notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued seeking to

acquire the land of the petitioner and certain other persons

located in Village Bamnoli for the planned development of Dwarka

Phase-II.

3. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5A of the said

Act on 24.12.2004. The same were dismissed and the declaration

under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 10.11.2005.

4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition(C) No.17582/2006 seeking

to impugn both the notifications under Section 4 and the

declaration under Section 6 of the said Act. The petitioner

enjoyed the interim relief for a period of more than four years

when the writ petition finally came up for hearing on 28.01.2010.

The order records that the "learned counsel for the petitioner

after arguing at length states on instructions that the petitioner

does not want to press the petition but would seek release of land

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

under Section 48 of the said Act" for which already two

applications had been filed. The Division Bench permitted the

petitioner to file the comprehensive application within a week for

the competent authority to take a decision in respect of the same.

5. The present petition is now filed by the petitioner aggrieved

by the communication dated 20.12.2010 informing the petitioner

that the case of the petitioner for de-notification was placed

before the De-notification Committee in its meeting held on

20.05.2010 and the Committee did not recommend the case for

de-notification and the matter may be treated as rejected and

closed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record. The record specifically shows that the land in

question has been allocated by the DDA for the benefit of Pragati

Power Corporation Ltd. to set up a new power project with 750MW

generating capacity. The total land, earmarked for the same, is

16.68 hectares out of which possession has been taken of 14.5

hectares. The remaining 2.18 hectares spread over four pockets

is under litigations. Two of the writ petitions in respect of 2.15

acres of land was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in

May, 2008 while the land situated in remaining two pockets

including the land of the petitioner was pending possession

because of the application filed under Section 48 of the said Act.

The Secretary(Power), who is the CMD, Delhi Transco Ltd., also

addressed a communication seeking early possession of the land

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

so that the process of establishment of a power generation plant

could be initiated early.

7. The meeting of the De-notification Committee was held

when a number of cases were examined, including that of the

petitioner. The reason for non-recommendation of the case of the

petitioner is stated to be the stand of the DDA that the land was

required for Dwarka Phase-II project.

8. The substratum of the grievance, as urged by learned Sr.

counsel for the petitioner before us, is that the land of the

petitioner is really not required for the project as there would

have been no occasion to issue the NOC for establishment of the

petrol pump if the land was to be acquired shortly thereafter.

9. We are unable to accept the aforesaid pleas. No doubt, the

process of acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act

would have started earlier and the concerned authorities should

have had intimation about the matter being under consideration.

However, the fact remains that as on the date when the

certificate was issued, the notification under Section 4 of the said

Act had not been published. The amount deposited by the

petitioner with the DDA is also after the issuance of the

notification under Section 4 of the said Act and, thus, the

petitioner knew, by that time, that the land in question was

sought to be acquired. If we see the purpose for which the land is

sought to be acquired, there can be no doubt about the same

being for public purpose.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

10. Learned counsel for the LAC has drawn our attention

to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Raheja Hospital

& Psychiatric Research Institute Through its Director Dr. H.C.

Raheja v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 2005 (121) DLT 193. In the

said case, the guidelines stated to be in existence for release

of land were sought to be enforced through a writ petition. It

was held that the guidelines were non-statutory in character.

The scope of Section 48 of the said Act has also been

discussed. The material aspect emphasized is that there

cannot be two rounds of litigation arising from the same

aspect, i.e., what could not be achieved by resorting to

challenge the acquisition acquire under Sections 4 and 6 of

the said Act cannot be achieved by resort to Section 48 of the

said Act. The provisions of Section 48 of the said Act are

enabling provisions for the Government to release the land in

an appropriate case and the exercise of power is unilateral in

character. Therefore, it has been observed that nothing said in

sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the said Act can be read to

mean that appropriate Government can be compelled to

withdraw from the acquisition. The Division Bench went on to

observe that a representation made by a land owner under

Section 48 of the said Act really cannot say anything more or

different from what has been indicated under Section 5A of the

said Act and that is the reason why there cannot be repetitive

or unlimited opportunities to the land owner to challenge the

acquisition process. In fact, the Bench went as far as to

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

observe that a land owner has no enforceable right to make a

representation under Section 48 of the said Act nor are the

respondents obliged to consider such a representation even if

a landowner has made it, more particularly when the

acquisition is upheld by a court of law as in that case and only

if the guidelines result in any discriminatory treatment against

a landowner would a cause of action arise.

11. In the present case the possession of the petitioner

was protected when the petitioner was permitted to withdraw

the petition and make a representation to the competent

authority under Section 48 of the said Act. This direction has

been honoured. All the relevant material has been placed

before the De-notification Committee. The De-notification

Committee has found that in view of the requirement of the

land, the same cannot be released. The recommendations of

the De-notification Committee were, thereafter, placed before

the Lt. Governor who approved the same. We cannot fault this

decision. We may add, at this stage, that the very objections

which have been raised under Section 48 of the said Act, as

observed above, were also raised by filing objection under

Section 5A of the said Act.

12. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

CM No.344/2011

No further directions are called for on this application.

The application stands disposed of.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

JANUARY 18, 2011                                                RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
RS

_____________________________________________________________________________________________