Delhi High Court
Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 February, 2016
$~24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 02.02.2016
W.P.(C) 1453/2015 & CM No.2551/2015 (stay)
BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr S.K. Rout with Mr Pawan Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for respondent No.3.
Ms Mrinalini Gupta with Mr Mrinmoi Chatterjee, Advocates for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 1453/2015 & CM No.2551/2015 (stay)
1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of the
respondent No.3 (Land Acquisition Collector) (North-West) is taken on
record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any
rejoinder affidavit as the necessary averments are contained in the writ
petition.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners contend that the acquisition
proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by
virtue of the Notification dated 12.08.1997 has lapsed inasmuch as there is
no declaration under Section 6 of the said Act within the stipulated period of
one year. The subject matter of the present petition pertains to the land in
Khasra Nos.79/24(1-06), 79/25(1-06), 85/3/2 (2-13), 4(3-06), 5(1-03), 6(2-
17), 7(3-15), 8/1(2-13), 85/26(4-05), 27(2-10) and 85/15/1 (1-00) measuring
26 Bighas 14 Biswas in all in Village Ghevra, Delhi.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, it is
stated that the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 12.08.1997 and
was followed by the Notifications under Sections 6 and 17(1) of the said Act
dated 10.09.1997. It is further stated that before the award could be made,
the petitioners challenged the said acquisition proceedings before this Court
in CWP 4002/1997. That petition was allowed by a judgment dated
08.08.2005. By virtue of the said decision, the operation of the urgency
clause under Section 17(1) and the declaration under Section 6 were quashed
and the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to give an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners as stipulated under Section 5A of the said Act.
4. Against the judgment dated 08.08.2005 delivered by a Division Bench
of this Court in CWP 4002/1997, the respondents preferred a special leave
petition being SLP (C) 26722/2005 before the Supreme Court. That was also
dismissed by virtue of an order dated 25.04.2011.
5. It is stated that thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector gave an
opportunity under Section 5A of the Act and the inquiry conducted was also
placed before the competent authority but no further declaration under
Section 6 of the said Act or other steps in furtherance of the acquisition were
taken.
6. From the above statement of facts, which are admitted by the
respondents, it becomes clear that the period of one year for making a
declaration under Section 6 has elapsed longtime ago. It may be pointed out
that even after the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Supreme
Court on 25.04.2011, a period far in excess of one year has elapsed. In terms
of the Supreme Court's decision in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N.:
(2002) 3 SCC 533, the Section 6 declaration not having been notified within
the mandatory period of one year from the issuance of the Notification under
Section 4, the subject acquisition has lapsed in respect of the land of the
petitioners referred to above.
7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the
subject acquisition has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2016
st
