Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 162 (DEL)

OM PRAKASH v. UNION OF INDIA

2003-02-14

A.K.SIKRI, DEVENDER GUPTA

body2003
DEVINDER GUPTA, ACJ. ( 1 ) BOTH these petitions are being decided by a common order since subject matter is the same and similar arguments were addressed at the bar. Relief prayed for in both the petitions are also same, which read:- "a writ of certiorary quashing the Public notice dated 11. 01. 2002; A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to provide alternative accommodation and rehabilitation to all the affected petitioners and other residents because of the proposed demolition of the shops/houses on one side of the linking road; A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide a link road of 14 meters instead of 18 meters so as to minimize the sufferings of the effected residents. " ( 2 ) THE petitioners alleged that they are the residents of the locality known as Mahavir enclave Part III, situated in village Palam having a total population over one lac. The said colony was in the list of 1071 colonies proposed to be regularized by the State of delhi. There is a 33 feet wide road passing through the colony connecting village bindapur with Dwarka/pappan Kalan and the said road passes over the Palam drain which is going to be covered so as to provide through traffic over the said drain. The said road, which is 33 feet wide also gets narrowed down to 20 feet near its end connecting dwarka. Respondent No. 2 with a view to provide a wider road connecting Dwarka with pocket 3 Bindapur notification notice under sections 4,6 and 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894, so as to enable the respondents to acquire the land for the said public purpose of widening the road to connect the above said two DDA colonies. It was alleged that the petitioners along with other similarly situated residents, total numbering to 85 were served with the public notice dated 11. 1. 2002 stating therein that total land measuring 6 bigha 8 biswas in village Palam is required to be taken by the respondents at the public expense for a public purpose to construct 18 meter wide road under Planned Development of Delhi. 1. 2002 stating therein that total land measuring 6 bigha 8 biswas in village Palam is required to be taken by the respondents at the public expense for a public purpose to construct 18 meter wide road under Planned Development of Delhi. Without giving any notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to the affected residents/occupiers to make a representation to the concerned authorities, the respondents have threatened to take over the said land after demolishing the duly constructed residences/shops on one side of the connecting road, on or after 16. 1. 2002 and to be handed over to respondent No. 2 for the said purpose of Planned Development of delhi. The petitioners alleged that they are not having sufficient time to make representation so as to establish their legal right as well as to point out that they are being discriminated qua the other similarly situated shops and houses on the other side of the road to whom such notice dated 11. 1. 2002 has not been served. ( 3 ) IN the aforementioned back ground the petitioners sought quashing of notification issued on 11. 1. 2002 by which notice it was made known that possession will be taken over on or after 16. 1. 2002 and handed over to Delhi Development Authority through Land and Building Department. ( 4 ) IN response to the show cause notice, reply was filed by the Delhi Development authority on the affidavit of Shri D. P. Dwivedi, director LM (HQ.) Vikas Sadan, New Delhi stating that the land in question was required for construction of road to Pocket No. 3 bindapur DDA flats. The same was acquired after necessary formalities under Land acquisition Act were adhered to. There are nearly 2500 Janta/lig Flats in Pocket No. 3, bindapur. The said land was urgently required for road widening and, therefore, as an emergent measure provision of Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was invoked. The respondents alleged that at present there is a very narrow approach road 20 ft. to 30 ft. in width catering to the residents of nearly 2500 janta/lig flats pocket No. 3, DDA at Bindapur. This narrow road connects Bindapur village with Dwarka/pappankalan. There was an urgent need to widen the road to 60 ft. width, as this narrow road was causing inconvenience and traffic hazard to the residents. to 30 ft. in width catering to the residents of nearly 2500 janta/lig flats pocket No. 3, DDA at Bindapur. This narrow road connects Bindapur village with Dwarka/pappankalan. There was an urgent need to widen the road to 60 ft. width, as this narrow road was causing inconvenience and traffic hazard to the residents. Except for this road there is no other proper main approach road to the binda Pur, DDA flats. Only one side of the land is acquired for widening of the road. In case land on both sides of the existing road is acquired there will be demolition on both the sides. The land acquired for widening of the road has less built up area and has a few vacant plots also as compared to the other side which has more double story house and no vacant plots. Thus if the other side was acquired there would have been more loss of property. The land has been acquired for a greater public purpose in which really 2500 janta/lig flat owners are involved whereas the acquired land effects only about 85 families. This is the only viable approach road to the Binda Pur flat ( 5 ) IN response to the respondent s reply, the petitioner filed rejoinder stating that Delhi development Authority cannot discriminate amongst the resident of the locality by carrying out demolition only on one side of the road. In case need to widen the road is so urgent, it was encumbent on the part of the dda to have taken possession of area on both sides of the road measuring 10 ft. each so that road be widened to the desirable limit. In other words, the petitioners claimed that by carrying out demolition only on one side upto 40 ft, they would be deprived of their valuable property. ( 6 ) MAIN argument of learned counsel for the petitioners has been that there is total discrimination on the part of the Delhi development Authority, while implementing its scheme to widen the road for which purpose various representations were made and it was assured that minimal disturbance would take place and in case disturbance would take place it would be on both sides of the road and not one side. Ignoring such genuine requests, for which assurances were also held out in various meetings, DDA was proceeding only to take possession and demolition from one side only up to the extent of 40 ft. ( 7 ) ON request of learned counsel for the petitioner we called for the original file of DDA to ascertain about the alleged assurances, alleged to have been held out to the petitioners. Original record was produced for our perusal. We have gone through the same. No doubt various representations were submitted and it was also suggested that land on both sides of the road be taken possession so as to cause little disturbance but the file suggest the said proposal was duly considered and it was found not to be feasible and ultimately it was decided to take possession from one side of the road. It was found that technically it is not possible to have widened the road by taking possession from both sides. ( 8 ) IN such like matters where wider public interest is involved of widening the road, some disturbance has to take place. There is no question of interference by the Court when the record suggests that all proposals were duly considered and the petitioners proposal was not found to be technically viable. Courts cannot interfere with the matters of such technical nature by making suggestion of its own, which will not be technically viable. The respondents did apply their mind and duly considered the objections raised by the petitioners both as regards the extent of the width of the road as also on the question that whether land should be taken from both sides of the road or only from one side. We do not find any illegality in decision making process for which no interference is called for in this writ petition. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted since it is not disputed that purpose sought to be achieved is the benefit of public at large and is of emergent nature. ( 10 )