AFLATOON AND OTHERS versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & OTHERS

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 23-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 14 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

8 02 
AFLATOON AND OTHERS 
V. 
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & OTHERS 
August 23, 1974 
[A. N. R,\Y, C.J.; K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGDUSWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI 
AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Land _Acquisition Act, Section 4, suJ;-sections (1) 
and 
(2)-lnitiation of 
proceedings under, a valid notification sine qua non- Delay in moving the 
Court-Effect. 
Ltind Acquisition Act, Section 23 and Co.nstilution of India, 1950, Articles 
19(1)(f) 31(2) and 31(5)-Campensation with reference to valrw of property 
on the date of ·notification under sec. 4-Adequacy of compensation, challenge 
of-Challenge oonfined only to question of procedural reasonableness. 
Delhi Development Act, sections 12 and 15-P/anned development of Delhi 
to be in accordance with the Act--Ccntral Govt., if precluded from acquiring 
land for planned development-Laches and acquiescence on the part of the 
petitioners-£ fleet. 
Land Acquisition Act, Section 3 (a) and Part Vil-Acquisition of land for 
planned development of, Delhi..-Landi11g over a portion of tile acquired property 
to co-operative housing societies-Provisions of Part VII of the Act, whether 
attracted. 
A notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on Nov. 
13, 1959, stating that an area of 34,070 acres of land was needed for a public 
purpose, viz. the planned development of Delhi. 
Between 1959 and 1961, 
about six thousand objections were filed under sec. SA of the ·Act. The objec~ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
tions were ov·.::rruled. 
On March 18, 1966, the declaration under sec. 6 of 
E 
• 
the Act was published in respect of a portion of the area. 
Therefore, in 1970, 
notices were issued under sec. 9 ( l) of the Act requiring the appellants to 
,.._ 
state their objections, if any, to the assessment of compensation. The appellants 
thereupon challenged the validity of proceedings for acquisition before 
the 
High Cou.rt of Delhi. 'fhe High Court negatived _their contentions a·nd dis-
missed the writ petitions. In the writ p.~titions and civil appeals fil·:!d in the 
Supreme Cou1t it was contended : (i) The public purpose specified in the 
notification issued under sec. 4, nan1ely, the planned development of Delhi WM 
F 
vague as neither a Master Plan nor a Zonal Plan was in existence on the date 
of the notification and as the purpose specified in the notification was vague, 
the appellants and the petitioners were unable to exercisei effectively their right 
under sec. SA of the Act; (ii) As there was inordinate delay in finalising- the 
acquisition proceedings, they were deprived of the benefit of the appreciation 
in the value of the property between the date of notification under sec. 4 and 
the date of taking possession of the property. 
(iii) The provisions of sec. 23 
of the Act laying down that compensation should be determined with reference 
-\ 
to the market value of the land as on the date of notification under sec. 4 was 
G 
an unreasonable restriCtion on the fundamental right of the appellants to hold 
and dispose of property under Article 19(1) (b); (iv) As the acquisition of 
the property was for the purpose of planned development of Delhi, the only 
authority competent to issue the notification under sec. 4 'vas the Central Govt. 
~ 
under sec. 15 of Delhi Development Act and since the proceedings were initiated 
by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, the proceedings were a}J initio invalid; 
iand ( v) Thei acquisition was not for any public purpose, but for companie~ 
as the major portion of the land acquired was. allotted without any development 
to co~operative housing "Societies which were companies within the definition of 
H 
the word ''company'• in the Act and as the provisions of part VII of the Act 
were not complied with the proceedings for acquisition were bad. 
Rejecting the contention and dis1nissing the appeals and the petitions, 
AFLATOON ':v. LT, GOVERNOR (Mmhew; ],) . 
8 03 
' 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
A 
HELD : . (i) A valid mtiJication under s~. 4 iS a sine qua non for lnitiatiolt 
"of pro>eedings Jor acquisition of property, ·It is neccssazy to spe<:ify !he parti-
c:ular public purpo<e in tho notiJication fot which tho land is needed or likely 
to be needed as otherwise, the, matters specified in sub-see: (2) of sec. (4/ 
~anilot be ·carried out. (807q 
B 
c' 
D 
F 
.H 
Munshi Singh and Others v. Union o/lndia; [191U 1 s.C.R.: 973 (975 and 
984) fr/ied on. 
· 
Arnold RodriCks and A,,other v. · Siate of Maharashtra and others, [1966] 3 
S.C.R. 88S referred to. 
In the case

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.