AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 06-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 6, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Ss.3(f}, 4(1) and 6-Acquisition of land for 'planned development' of 
city of Delhi-Public pwpose-Publication of substance of notification in the C 
locality-Held, acquisition of land for planned development of Delhi is a 
public pwpose-Whe11 an auth01ity constituted under the Act has initiated the 
action for acquisition of a large area of land comp1ising several plots for 
planned development, the specification of a pmticular land needed for a 
specified purpose inte11ded to be w1deitake11 for the development ultimately D 
to be taken up is not a condition precedent to initiate the action for acquisition 
nor does the absence and ftather elaboration of the develop1nent have the 
effect of rendering the satisfactio11 reached by the Govemor illegal and 
publicatio11 of notification u11der s.4( 1) in the Gazette does not get vitiated on 
account thereof-The Notification under u/s. 4(1), therefore, is not vitiate4 on 
account of the fact that planned developmelll was 110/ specified with par-
ticul01isation of land sought to be acquired for the public purpose-Record 
shows that copy of the notification was affixed at a conspicuous place i11 the 
locality in which the lands proposed to be acquired were situated, besides 
affixing one copy each outside the cowt of the Deputy Commissioner con-
cemed and the relevant Tehsil office-17ie substance of the notification was 
duly published i11 the locality. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
E 
F 
S.114(e)-Official acts-Presumptio11 as to the act havi11g been done 
properly-Record showi11g that copy of substance of Notificatio11 u/s 4( 1) of G 
Land Acquisition Act, was affixed at a conspicuous place in the locality i11 
which the lands proposed to be acquired were situated-Held, official act was 
done properly. 
Aflatoon v. Lt. Govemor, [1975] 1 SCR 802, followed. 
319 
H 
A 
B 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
Snit. Ratni Devi and Anr. v. Chief Conunissioner, Delhi and Ors., 
[1975) 4 SCC 467; Pt. Lila Ram v. 17ze Union of India and Ors., [1975) 2 
SCC 547; Om Prakash v. Union of l11dia, [1988) 1 SCC 356; Ram Chand 
and Ors. v. Union of India and Ois., [1994) 1 SCC 44; State of Tamil Nadu 
and On·. v. L. !Vish11an and Ors., [1996) 1 SCC 250 and Jai Narain and On. 
v. U11ion of India & Ors., [1996] 1 SCC 9, relied on. 
Smt. Somarnnti v. State of Punjab, [1963) 2 SCR 774; Klmbchand v. 
State of Rajasthan, [1967) 1SCR973; State of UP. v. Smt. Pista Devi & O""• 
[1986] 4 SCC 251; Gian Chand v. Gopala & Ois., [1995) 2 SCC 528; 
Mahavir and Am" v. Rural Institute, Amravati & Anr., [1995] 5 SCC 335 and 
C Laxmi Enginee1ing Works v. P.S G. Ind11st1ial institute, [1995) 3 SCC 583, 
cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2298 of 
1981 Etc. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.78 of the Delhi High 
Court in L.P.A. No. 116 of 1975. 
P.N. Lckhi and M.K. Garg for the Appellants. 
Ravinder Sethi, V.B. Saharya, Wasim A. Qadri and B.K. Prasad for 
E 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated October 10, 1978 made in 
F 
L.P.A. No. 115/75 and batch. The Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble 
Chie'f Justice T.V.R. Tatachari and Hon'ble Justice S. Ranganathan, as they 
then were, in an elaborate judgment rendered by the later running into 129 
pages, considered threadbare two questions of law raised for consideration, 
namely, the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration 
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1of1894 (for.short, the 'Act') 
G acquiring an extent of 3470 acres in Naraina village for public purpose, viz., 
"planned Development of Delhi" and secondly, whether the substance of 
the notification under Section 4(1) was published in the locality as en-
visaged under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. The learned Judges 
have upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the 
H planned development of Delhi is a public purpose and that, therefore, 
AK.SHINGHALv. U.0.1. 
321 
notification was not beset with any vagueness in the likely need of the land A 
for the said purpose. It also held that the substance of the notification was 
published in the locality, Naraina. The Division Bench Considered 
elaborately various discrepancies 

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