Delhi High Court
Premadhar Memorial Charitable ... vs Union Of India And Others on 1 September, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.09.2015
+ W.P.(C) 3037/2015 and CM No. 5430/2015
PREMADHAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST THOUGH ITS
TRUSTEE ... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioner : Mr Rajesh Gupta, Mr Harpreet Singh and
Mr Moolchand Verma
For the Respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr Anuj Aggarwal
For the Respondent Nos.3&5 : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition pertains to Khasra No. 29//16/1 comprising of 4
bighas and 10 biswas in Revenue Estate of Village Pansali, Delhi. The case of
the petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings which were initiated by virtue
of the notification dated 27.10.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed on account of the fact that the Section 6
declaration has not been made within the stipulated period of one year.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Padma Sundara Rao v. The State of T.N: (2002) 3 SCC 533 as also on the
decision of this court in Sunil Goel & Ors v. The State & Ors, W.P.(C) No.
3049/2013, decided on 29.04.2014
2. As mentioned above, the Section 4 notification was issued on
27.10.1999. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 on
03.04.2000, that is, after five months and 6 days of the Section 4 notification.
The said acquisition was challenged by the petitioner in this Court as well as
before the Supreme Court and, ultimately, on 21.03.2012 the Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 3009/2012 quashed the said Section 6 declaration dated
03.04.2000. The Supreme Court, however, gave liberty to the respondents to
invite objections under Section 5A of the said Act in respect of the Section 4
notification dated 27.10.1999 and proceed with the matter in accordance with
law.
3. Thereafter, notices were issued inviting objections under Section 5A of
the said Act and, ultimately, a fresh Section 6 declaration was issued on
20.03.2013, that is, exactly 12 months after the decision of the Supreme Court
which was rendered on 21.03.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that the
Section 6 declaration dated 20.03.2013 is also liable to be set aside on account
of the fact that it has not been issued within one year of the notification under
Section 4. Initially a period of 5 months and 6 days had elapsed between the
issuance of the notification under Section 4 and the first declaration under
Section 6. The second Section 6 declaration ought to have been completed
within the balance period of 6 months and 24 days but, the respondents took a
full 12 months to issue the declaration under Section 6. In other words, even if
the period is computed by giving benefit of the period spent before the High
Court and the Supreme Court, the Section 6 declaration issued on 20.03.2013
was issued after 17 months and 6 days of the Section 4 notification, which is
clearly beyond the period of one year prescribed in Section 6 of the said Act.
This being the position, following the decisions in the case of Padma Sundara
Rao (supra) and Sunil Goel (supra), the declaration under Section 6 of the said
Act dated 20.03.2013 is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. As a
result, the notification dated 27.10.1999 being notification No.
F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394 issued under Section 4 of the said Act insofar as
the petitioner's land is concerned, would also be regarded as having lapsed.
4. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to
costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2015
SU
