Madhusudan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5301 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                 Judgment delivered on: 28.10.2014
+       W.P.(C) 5944/2013

MADHUSUDAN                                             ..... Petitioner
                 versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                            ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr B.S. Maan with Mr Vishal Maan.
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for R-2/LAC.


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                               JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition concerns the acquisition proceedings which

were commenced by the issuance of a notification under section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said

Act') on 04.02.1988. The subject lands are situated in mustatil no. 54,

killa no. 2/2/2 min.(1-09), 9 min (3-11), 10/1 (2-01), 12 (4-12), 19/1 (0-

14), in all measuring 12 bighas and 7 biswas, situated in the revenue

estate of village Bharthal, New Delhi.

2. Earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)

2803/1988 challenging the invocation of sections 17(2) and 17(4) of the

said Act. That challenge was sustained by a Division Bench of this

court by virtue of its judgment dated 27.04.2006. The Division Bench

did not quash the notification under section 4 but quashed the

notification under section 17(2) and 17(4) of the said Act and granted

liberty to the petitioner to file objections under section 5A of the said

Act before the competent authority within 30 days from the date of the

said judgment. The petitioner filed the objections within the time

allotted on 26.05.2006. After the judgment dated 27.04.2006 delivered

by the Division Bench of this court, the respondent preferred a Special

Leave Petition being SLP (C) 18561/2006 wherein on 20.11.2006 the

Supreme Court had granted interim stay of the High Court's order. The

said SLP was ultimately dismissed on 21.03.2012.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no fresh notification under section 6 of the said Act has been issued and the mandatory period for issuance of such a notification has long gone by. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the Padmasundara Rao and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others: 2002 (3) SCC 533 to submit that the in such an

eventuality the acquisition proceedings itself should be declared as having lapsed .

4. We had requested the learned counsel for the respondent to bring the relevant file to the court to examine as to whether any notification under section 6 had been issued subsequent to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. On going through the said record, we were unable to find any such notification. This being the position, following the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (supra), since the time for issuing the notification under section 6 has elapsed, the entire acquisition proceedings shall have to be declared as having lapsed.

5. It is ordered accordingly.

6. The petitioner is at liberty to seek the correction of the revenue record.

7. The writ petition is allowed as above.

                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



OCTOBER 28, 2014                         SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
kb