DELHI ADMINISTRATION versus GURDIP SINGH UBAN AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 18-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
v. 
GURDIP SINGH UBAN AND ORS. ETC. 
AUGUST 18, 2000 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition : 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 5A, 6, 48-A batch of writ 
petitions for quashing the acquisition proceedings allowed by High Court on 
the ground that satisfaction of the Lt. Governor under Section 6 was vitiated as 
objections filed were not properly considered-Applicant not having filed any 
objections, seeking benefit of the said judgment for quashing acquisition pro-
ceedirr.gs qua his /and-Legality of-Held, those claimants who have not.filed 
objections cannot be permitted to contend that Section 5A inquiry is vitiated so 
far as they are concerned-Applicant not having filed objections on grounds 
personally applicable to him or his land seeking exclusion.from acquisition, the 
objections in that behalf must be deemed to have been waived-However, DDA 
having represented to the applicant that acquisition proceedings had been 
quashed and applicant having constructed a building on that representation, 
estoppel prima facie arising in favour of the applicant-Applicant's case 
directed to be considered sympathetically for release of his land-Indian Sol-
diers (Litigation) Act, 1925-Section JO-Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 
115. 
Declaration that land is required for a public purpose-Satisfaction of 
Government-Requirement of-Held, no reasons or other.facts need be men-
tioned in Section 6 declaration on its face-If satisfaction is challenged, it 
would be sufficient if such satisfaction is proved by producing the record on the 
basis of which the declaration was issued-While referring to its satisfaction, 
the Government need not refer to every piece of particular land-It is sufficient 
if the authority which conducts-Section 5A inquiry has considered the objec-
.. 
tions raised in relation to any particular land. 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966-0rder XL, Rules I and 35-Review appli-
cations-Restraint in.filing, emphasised-Practice of filing review applications 
in the garb of applications for 'clarification', 'modification' or 'recall' to avoid 
listing in chambers by way of circulation and obtain a hearing in the open 
496 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. GURDIP SINGH UBAN 
497 
court-Permissibility of 
Practice and Procedure : 
Matter disposed ()f by one order and reasons thereto provided in a 
subsequent order-Held, the latter order containing reasons cannot go beyond 
A 
the four corners of the order already passed. 
B 
Words and Phrases : 
'Rule nisi' and 'Rule obsolute'-Meaning of-Explained. 
A notification tinder Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was 
C 
issued for acquisition of the land in question. The said acquisition was 
challenged in a batch of 73 writ petitions before the High Court. The said 
petitions were allowed by a Division Bench quashing the acquisition pro-
ceedings. Thereafter the Division Bench passed another order giving rea-
sons for its earlier order allowing the writ petitions. 
Subsequently, the applicants also moved the High Court for quash-
ing of acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands. The High Court 
treating its aforesaid subsequent order providing reasons for allowing the ' 
batch of 73 petitions, as a judgment in rem, allowed the said petitions filed 
by the applicants. Against this judgment, the Delhi Administration and the 
Delhi Development Authority, who were not before the High Court, pre-
ferred two civil appe~ls before this Court. The said appeals were allowed 
upholding the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the applicants. 
Thereafter the applicant in I.As 4 and 5 filed Review Petitions which 
D 
E 
were dismissed in circulation by a reasoned order. Despite dismissal of his 
F 
Review Petitions, the applicant filed the present I.As for clarification. 
The applicant in I.A. 3 also filed a Review Petition which was still 
pending when she filed the present application for clarification and modi-
fication. 
A writ petition was also filed in this Court against the order of the 
DDA which stipulated going ahead with the possession of the land in 
question after the aforesaid Civil Appeals were allowed. 
G 
On behalf of the applicant, it was contended that grave injustice 
would take place if the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid Civil 
H 
A 
B 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
Appeals were allowed to stand without being reviewed or recalled; that the 
applicant had 

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