Delhi High Court
Beer Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 July, 2017
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON: 11.07.2017
%
+ W.P. (C) 6525/2013, CM APPL.14182/2013
BEER SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
LAC/L&B Deptt. with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.
Mr. Ajay Verma, Standing Counsel for DDA with
Ms. Diviani Khanna, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners' claim is that the land acquired through
Notification dated 21.03.2003 and declaration dated 19.03.2004 and
subsequently followed by an Award dated 15.07.2005, published in
Official Gazette on 05.08.2005 i.e., 30 Bigha 8 Biswa in various
khasra numbers in village Barwala is illegal and void.
2. The respondent, i.e., the Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued a
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
(hereafter mentioned as "Old Act") on 21.03.2003. This Notification
did not specify the particulars of the land proposed to be acquired; it
reads as follows: -
"No.F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/20112 - Whereas it appears
to the Lt. Governor, Delhi that land is likely to be required to
be taken by Government at the public expenses for a public
purpose namely for Rohini Residential Scheme. It is hereby
notified that the land in the locality described below is likely to
be acquired for the above purpose.
The notification is made, under the provisions of Sub-
section 1 of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to all
whom it may concern.
In exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid
section, the Lt. Governor, Delhi is please to authorise the
officers for the time being engaged in the undertaking with
their servants and workmen to enter upon and survey the land
in the locality and do all other acts required or permitted by
that section.
Any person, interested, who has any objection to the
acquisition of any land in the locality, may within 30 days of
the publication of the notification file an objection in writing
before the Land Acquisition Collector (North-West), Delhi.
Map showing the boundaries of land covered by the
Notification is available for inspection in the office of the Land
Acquisition collector (North-West), Delhi.
SPECIFICATION
__________________________________________________
VILLAGE TOTAL AREA FIELD NOS. AREA
Land measuring approx 3000 hectare is bounded on the North by
Western Yamuna Cannal leading towards east and joining with Land
already acquired by DDA (Phase 4 &5) and thereafter leading
towards South bounded by Rohtak Railway Line and thereafter
leading towards West bounded by High Tension Line.
NORTH
Yamuna Cannal
High Tension Line WEST EAST
Phase 4&5
Rohtak Railway Line acquired
Land boundary
SOUTH
By Order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of Delhi
H.D. Mahi, Dy. Secy. (LA)"
3. Subsequently, declaration was issued under Section 6 of the old
Act on 19.03.2004. This declaration included the tracks of land that
belonged to the petitioners. Various claims for compensation were
invited from the recorded owners after which the Land Acquisition
Collector announced its Award on 15.07.2005.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners accepted the Award and
the compensation was assessed; they were not aggrieved by the
assessment and, therefore, did not seek any enhancement. A
certificate issued on 27.02.2006 evidencing that the compensation was
paid to them reads as follows: -
"OFFICE OF THE LAND ACQUISTION COLLECTOR, D/C, NORTH-
WEST AT KANJHAWALA. DELHI
NO.LAC/ADM/NW/NT/LA/24 DATED: 27.02.2006
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the land mentioned below of the Village-Barwala has
been acquired vide Award No. 12/2005-2006/DC/NW announced on
5.8.2005 vide notification No.F-11 (19/2001/L&B/LA/20112) dated
21.03.2003 for the purpose of Rohini Residential Scheme under P.D.D. the
possession of the land has been transferred to the Govt. Department
/Concerned Department on 6.10.2005.
Sh. Beer Singh S/o Chandu Lal was the interested person/ share holder in
the acquired land and compensation of land was paid to him.
S.No. Khasra No. Area Share Cheque No.576372
995 27 10/2 2-08 1/3 Date:14/10/05
44 13min 1-12 Amount:1,13,85,130/-
14 4-16
16 4-16
17 4-16
18 min 3-12
22 min 1-12
23 4-16
24 4-16
25 4-16
45 2 4-11
7 4-16
8/2 3-00
9/2 2-14
20 3-17
21/1 2-06
57 2 min 3-15
3/1 3-03
_______________
18 Plots 66-02
________________
For Prithvi Raj
N.T.
(C.Arvind)
Land Acquisition Collector
North-West, Delhi
5. In these circumstances, based upon reply to an RTI query -
which stated that according to the revenue records the suit lands were
acquired without Notification under Section 4, the petitioners
approach this Court for quashing of the entire acquisition so far as the
suit lands are concerned.
6. Mr. Akhil Sachar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends
that in the absence of specification as to the extent of lands proposed
to be acquired, the land owner is under disability inasmuch as he
cannot prefer objections under Section 5A. Mr. Sachar contends that
this in fact happened in the facts of the present case as the petitioners
were unaware whether their lands fell within the proposal for
acquisition and could not lodge any objection. That subsequently
under Section 6 declaration the suit lands were included and later
assessed to compensation, did not in any way improve the matter so
far as the appropriate government is concerned. In this regard, it is
contended by the petitioners that the law is well settled, in that if the
appropriate government does not specify either in the Section 4
Notification or in the Section 6 declaration about the lands with
specificity, the entire acquisition would fail. Learned counsel relied
upon the judgments reported as Union of India v. M.L. Vashisht &
Ors., AIR 2004 SC 3315; Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. V. M.P.
Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (2005) 10 SCC 306 and M.P. Housing
Board v. Mohd. Shafi & Ors. 1992 (2) SCC 168. It was pointed out
that in these circumstances, the fact that the petitioners collected
compensation and even surrendered land could not in any manner
validate the acquisition. To say that these proceedings are not time
barred, learned counsel relies upon the judgment in Tukaram Kana
Joshi v. M.I.D.C. & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 565.
7. The respondents point out to the fact that the Section 4
Notification clearly states that: -
"Map showing the boundaries of land covered by the
Notification is available for inspection in the office of the Land
Acquisition Collector (North-West), Delhi.""
8. It is submitted that according to the decisions of the Supreme
Court, such a declaration and stipulation in the Section 4 Notification
is sufficient. In any event, according to the respondents, the lands
were clearly delineated in the Section 6 declaration. The DDA points
out that in the representation filed on behalf of land owners and
produced by the petitioners, there is a clear statement that a joint
survey was conducted, before declaration was issued on 19.03.2004.
The said statement inter alia reads as follows: -
"That after issuance of abovesaid notification a joint survey
was also conducted by the officials of Land & Building
Department, DDA Department, LAC Department alongwith
Halqa Patwari of village-Barwala, after the joint survey a
declaration of u/s.6 of Land Acquisition Act,1894 was notified
vide notification No.F-11(11)/2004 /L&B/LA/28281 dated
19.3.2004 (Copy of the same is attached herewith this
representation) and subsequently the Award vide Award
No.12/2005-06 was announced on 5.8.2005 in which the
Khasra numbers were mentioned."
9. It is urged that this Court should refrain from exercising its
jurisdiction since the petitioners have approached it not only in a
belated manner, but also after accepting compensation. Learned
counsel for the respondents rely upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court reported as Delhi Development Authority v. Shyam Sundar
Khanna, 2004 (72) DRJ 356 (SC).
10. It is apparent from the above discussion that two questions need
to be resolved in the present proceedings:
First is whether in the absence of specificity as to the lands
proposed to be acquired under Section 4 Notification, the entire
acquisition, subsequently notified through declaration and
culminating an Award would fail; and
Second, whether relief is to be denied even otherwise on the
ground of delay and laches.
11. No doubt, the judgments, in M.P. Housing Board and O.P.
Sharma (supra) relied upon by the petitioners do seem to suggest in a
broad manner that absence of specificity either as to the public
purpose or as to the lands would result in the vagueness as to the
acquisition or the object of it, and that would invalidate the
acquisition itself. At the same time, the Court is conscious that there
are other judgments - some of larger combination of three Judges or
more such as Indrajit C. Parekh v. State of Gujarat 1975 (1) SCC
824; State of Tamilnadu and Anr. v. A. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. 1991 (4)
SCC 22 and S. Gurdial Singh & Ors. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust,
(1997) 5 SCC 138 which state to the contrary. In fact in S. Gurdial
Singh (supra), the Court specifically held that if the Notification
under Section 4 indicates that a map is available for inspection which
contains the specifications with respect to the lands proposed to be
acquired and those which are the subject matter of the Notification,
the acquisition cannot be invalidated. The judgment in O.P. Sharma
does not notice S. Gurdial Singh (supra). Equally it takes into
account M.P. Housing Board (supra). Similarly we notice that
judgment in M.L. Vashisht (supra) merely went on to affirm the
conclusions of the High Court. It did not independently discuss the
reasoning or judgment or binding decisions rendered by the Supreme
Court previously.
12. As a result, in the present case, the Section 4 Notification
clearly states that the map and details of the lands proposed to be
acquired were available for inspection, the representation given by
land owners also indicates that declaration was preceded by a joint
survey and that all concerned were aware of it.
13. Furthermore, in the present case, the declaration clearly brought
out that all the area was to vest in the appropriate Government;
assessment of compensation was done. All these were within the
knowledge of the petitioners who even received the compensation and
kept quiet for nearly eight years. The petitioners' reliance upon the
judgment in Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra), to say that the delay cannot
defeat the action, in our opinion, is not persuasive. There is no
mention as to whether the litigant who approached the Court was
aware of the Section 6 declaration, and more importantly, whether he
or they had collected the compensation in this case. Lack of any
explanation as to why the petitioners did not approach this Court at
the earliest available opportunity, i.e., after issuance of the Section 6
declaration, in our opinion, is a clear bar to the present petition - as
held in Shyam Sundar Khanna (supra).
14. For the above reasons, the writ petition has to fail and is
dismissed accordingly.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
S.P.GARG, J
JULY 11, 2017
/vikas/
