DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 03-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 595 
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY l.RS. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF. NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 11169 of 2011) 
JANUARY 3, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- s. 17(1), (4) ands. SA (2) -
Proposal for establishment of electric sub-station - Issuance C 
of notification invoking s. 17 (1) and (4) and dispensing with 
the rule of hearing in s. S A(2) for the purpose of acquiring 
land belonging to appellant for the public purpose -
Challenge to - High Court negatived appellants' challenge 
to acquisition of their right - On appeal held: There was long D 
time gap of more than five years between initiation of the 
proposal for establishment of the sub-station and the issue 
of notification u/s. 4 (1) read with s. 17 (1) and (4) -
Government of NCT of Delhi did not produce any material to 
justify its· decision to dispense with the application of s. SA -
E 
Approval accorded by the Lieutenant Governor did not contain 
anything from which it could be inferred that a conscious 
decision was taken to dispense with the application of s. SA 
which represents two facets of the rule of hearing - No 
tangible evidence produced by the Government of NCT F 
before the court to show urgency in establishing the sub-
station was such that even few months time, which may have 
been consumed in the filing of objections by the land owners 
and other interested persons u/s. SA(1) and holding of enquiry 
by the Collector u/s. 5A(2) would have frustrated the project G 
- Thus, the High Court not justified in rejecting the appellants' 
challenge to the invoking of urgency provisions on the 
premise that the land was required for implementation of a 
project which would benefit large section of the socjety - Order 
595 
H 
•e 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.CR. 
A passed by the High Court set aside and acquisition of land 
of the appellant quashed. 
s. 17 (1) and (4) - Invocation of urgency provisions under 
- Justification of - Held: Invocation of urgency provisions can 
B be justified only if even small delay of few weeks or months 
may frustrate the public purpose for which the land is sought 
to be acquired. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300A - Eminent 
c domain - Exercise of power- Held: State in exercise of power 
of eminent domain, can acquire the private property for public 
purpose - Compulsory acquisition of the property belonging 
to a private individual has grave repercussions on his 
Constitutional right of not being deprived of his property 
0 without the sanction of law-Article 300A and the legal rights -
Degree of care required to be taken by the State is greater 
when the power of compulsory acquisition of private land is 
exercised by invoking s. 17 because that results in depriving 
the owner of his property. without being afforded an opportunity 
of hearing. 
E 
In the year 2004, DTL Company requested the Delhi 
Development Authority for allotment of land for 
establishment of electric sub-station. The next year, 
different 
functionaries 
of 
DTL 
made 
some 
F correspondence inter-se in the said matter. Between the 
year 2006 and 2008, the officers of the DTL, the DOA and 
the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi exchanged letters on 
the issue of allotment of land for the sub-station. 
Thereafter, the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi issued a 
G notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and 
(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition 
of 80 bighas 15 biswas land. By another notification, the 
Land Acquisition Collector was authorised to take 
possession of the land. Pursuant thereto, the appellant 
made a representation to MLA that a~. per Master Plan of 
H 
. I 
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v. 
597 
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 
Delhi-2021 only 29.6 bigha land was required for the sub-
A 
station and that barren land available in the area could 
be utilized for the same but the representation was not 
acceded to. The notifications were issued under Section 
4(1) read with' Section 17(1) and (4) and Section 6(1) of 
the Act. The appellants filed a writ petitions for quashing 
B 
of notifications on the ground that there was no urgency 
for the acquisition of land which could justify invoking 
of Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act. The High Court 
dismissed the writ petition negating the appellants 
challenge to the invoking of s. 14 of the Act. Therefore, c 
the appellants filed the instant appeal. 
D' 

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