Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 402 (DEL)

KUNDAN LAL v. UNION OF INDIA

1986-11-17

N.C.KOCHHAR, YOGESHWAR DAYAL

body1986
( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of C. W. Nos. 2012 and 2013 of 1986. ( 2 ) MR. B. R. L. lyengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged a Notification dt. 27th Jan. , 1984 issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and another Notification issued under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act whereby certain agricultural lands of which petitioner claims to be Bhoomidar have been acquired. The acquisition has been done by the aforesaid Notifications on the ground of planned development of Delhi. Following submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for impugning the aforesaid, Notifications. (I) That the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not competent to acquire the land and it is only the Central Government which could have acquired the land. (ii) That the Notification issued under S. 4 is vague as it does not mention the villages which are sought to be acquired. (iii) That the acquisition of land is in violation of Article 31a of the Constitution as the compensation payable for acquisition is the market value of the land on the date the Notification under S. 4 was issued. (iv) That as per the Master Plan, the land in dispute is earmarked as green belt. (v) That the land in dispute could not have been acquired as it was within the Laldora. ( 3 ) SO far as first point is concerned, it will be noticed that the question, whether the land could be acquired in Delhi by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, is concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Major S. K. Gupta v. Union of India, ILR (1977) 1 Delhi 659 : (AIR 1977 Delhi 209 ). This Full Bench decision noticed that the President had directed Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, under Art. 239 (1) of the Constitution to "exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Central Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1984" within the Union Territory of Delhi and therefore the impugned Notification could be issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. 3a. Mr. 3a. Mr. lyenger submitted that the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi could not have acquired the land in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872 , where the Supreme Court had observed that Lieutenant Governor could not deal with the property of the Central Government. It will be noticed that the Lieutenant Governor is not dealing with the property of the Central Government but acquiring the property from private citizens. The reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is - misplaced. ( 4 ) ON the second point, learned counsel submitted that in the absence of names of the villages, petitioners were deprived to file. objections under S. 5-A of the Land. Acquisition Act. It will be noticed that identical Notification is subject matter of numerous writ petitions before us where we have noticed the owners filing objections under S. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. However, that does not by itself show whether the Notifications. issued under S. 4 of the Act were vague or not. As per the copy of the Notification filed by the petitioner, the description of the area which was proposed to be acquired is as under : "dated the 27th Jan. , 1984 No. F. 9 (16)/84- L and B : Whereas it appears to the Lt. Governor, Delhi that the land specified below is required by the Government at public expense fora public purpose, namely, for the Planned Development of Delhi. Now, in pursuance of the provisions of; Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 it is hereby notified, to all to whom it may concern, that land measuring about 3550 (Three thousand five hundred and fifty) Hectares bounded on the north by Pankha Road starting from its justion (Junction) with Najafgarh Road leading towards east and joining with Rewari Railway line near Sagarpur and thereafter leading to the Railway Line towards the South joining with a point near Barthal at the crossing of Oil Pipe Line towards the North West and joining. the Najafgarh Road East along Najafgarh Road touching the starting point of Pankha Road excepting the following land : (A) Government Land, (B) Land within the old Laldora and (C) Land already notified under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is likely to be acquired under the provisions of the said Act for the purpose above stated. In exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid section, the Lt. Governor is pleased to authorise the Officers for the time being engaged in the undertaking with their servants and workmen to enter upon and survey any 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 Collector of Delhi. Map showing the boundaries of land covered by this Notification is available for inspection in the Office of the Collector, Delhi. " ( 5 ) IT will be noticed that the Notification under S. 4 of the Act was not only published in Gazette but also required to be published in two Newspapers besides its publicity in the locality itself. The boundaries of the land which are sought to be acquired have been given clearly and it is not the case of the petitioners that the land of the petitioners does not fall within the boundaries stated in the Notification. The Notification covers about 3550 Hectares of land. The boundaries given in the Notification does in a way specify the locality besides the Notification also mentions that a Map showing the boundaries of the land covered by the Notification is available for inspection. It is, therefore, sufficient description of the locality. ( 6 ) ON the third point, it will be noticed that the fundamental right as to properties has since been repealed and even Article 31 of the Constitution of India was repealed by the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978 and even earlier the Act could not be challenged on the ground of inadequacy of compensation payable under it in view of the old Article 31 (5) of the Constitution. (See : (1975) 4 SCC 285 : ( AIR 1974 SC 2077 ) Aflatoon v. Lt. (See : (1975) 4 SCC 285 : ( AIR 1974 SC 2077 ) Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi which was a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the similar Notification of Planned Development of Delhi.) ( 7 ) IN any case Article 31a of the Constitution does not in any way render the provision of Land Acquisition Act as ultra vires thereof. ( 8 ) THE challenge to the vires of the Land Acquisition Act on the basis that compensation payble for acquisition of property depends upon the market value of the property on the date of Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, has again been repelled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ratna Devi v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 467 : AIR 1975 SC 1699 . ( 9 ) AGAIN to compensate the loss caused to the claimant by the delayed determination and payment of compensation, the Act while directing determination of the compensation by taking into consideration the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the Notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act also provides payment of solatium and interest and also for such improvements as have been made by the claimant with the permission of the Collector. This in our view satisfies the requirements of the second proviso to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution. (See : a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. v V. S. Murthy (1984) 1 Andh LT 108 : AIR 1984 AP 271 at page 129) and consequently Section 23 (1) in so far as it directs that the compensation shall be determined taking into consideration the market value as on the date of publication of the Notification cannot be held to be ultra vires of the second proviso to Article 3l-A (l) or any other provisions of the Constitution so as to declare it null and void. ( 10 ) IT may also be noticed that in the Land Acquisition Act as it now stands the definite period is prescribed within which declaration under S. 6 of the Act can be issued after publication of Notification under S. 4 of the Act. Again a definite period is provided within which the Award must be issued. ( 10 ) IT may also be noticed that in the Land Acquisition Act as it now stands the definite period is prescribed within which declaration under S. 6 of the Act can be issued after publication of Notification under S. 4 of the Act. Again a definite period is provided within which the Award must be issued. Solatium has been increased from 15% to 30% and there is a provision for payment of interest also. It cannot thus be said that what is being offered is less than the market value of the land. In the present case all the proceedings right from S. 4 and Section 6 of the Act have been completed within practically two years. It cannot, therefore, be said that the present acquisition proceedings are in any case hit by the second proviso to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution. ( 11 ) SO far as points 4 and 5 are concerned, it will be noticed that the land of the petitioner does not fall within the old Laldora at all. In the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land situate within the old Laldora has been specifically exempted. It is not the case of the petitioner that land of the petitioner falls within the limit of old Laldora. As per the case of the petitioners themselves it is a case of agricultural land of the petitioners without any building. There is no bar to such acquisition under Land Acquisition Act. ( 12 ) AGAIN after declaration under S. 6 of the Act, there is a presumption that land is required for the purpose stated in the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and it is a conclusive proof that land is acquired for the purposes mentioned in the Notification. (See : AIR 1963 SC 151 , Smt. Somawanti v. State of Punjab ). It is too late in the day to say that it is a case of colourable exercise of powers. Hundreds of Notifications have been issued for same purpose in Delhi and have been upheld. There is thus no merit in the writ petitions, the same are dismissed.