HAR KIRAN COMMAR versus DELHI ADMN. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 21-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HAR KIRAN COMMAR 
v. 
DELHI ADMN. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 2000 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ] 
land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
S.48-C/aim for deacquisition-Brother of land owner granted 
C permission to file application u/s. 48 on the basis of letter indicating that 
acquisition·proceedings had been quashed by High Court and land owner 
permit(ed to make further construction with prior approval of Municipal 
Corporation of Delhi-Held, in instant case, there was no letter similar to 
that issued to applicant's brother-Besides, the land acquisition in respec1 
D of the applicant and others did not stand quashed but remained valid~ 
Applicant cannot contend that her case is similar to that of her brother. 
Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. , JT (2000) 9 SC 245, 
distinguished. 
E 
Abhey Ram v. Union of India, 11997] 5 SCC 421, relied on. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition (C) No. 21 of 
2000. 
IN 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4656 OF 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.96 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 920of1986. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sanjay Sarin, Ms. Anuradha Dutt and Ms. B. 
G Vijayalakshmi Menon for the Petitioner/Appellant. 
H 
Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand, 
Ms. Geeta Luthra, Manoj Swarup and Hiren Dasan for the. Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
6 
H.K. COMMAR v. DELHI ADMIN. 
7 
This is a review application by the petitioner Mrs. Har Kiran Commar. A 
She is the sister of Gurdip Singh Uban who had also filed a review application 
earlier and whose review application was dismissed and who had thereafter 
filed other I.As. The I.As filed by Gurdip Singh Uban were disposed of by 
an elaborate judgment of this Court on 18th August 2000 Delhi Admn. v. 
Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. reported in JT (2000) 9 SC 245. Gurdip Singh Uban B 
was given some limited relief only on the concession of the respondents. ln 
the present application filed by the petitioner it is contended by learned 
senior counsel, Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, that this case is no different from that 
of petitioner's brother and, therefore, a similar relief is to be given. 
We have heard learned Solicitor General of India in reply. While disposing C 
of the case of the petitioner's brother on 18th August 2000 this Court made 
reference to a letter of the Joint Director dated 6.2.96 (F 9 (2) 90/CRC/South/ 
S-71 which read as follows : 
"Acquisition proceedings/Notification has been quashed by the 
Hon'ble High Court in case of Shri B.R. Gupta and Ors. 
D 
You are, therefore, requested to kindly approach the MCD for 
approval of the building plans and ADM(R) for getting N.O.C. for 
construction on the said land." 
That would mean that apart from stating that the land acquisition proceedings E 
stood quashed, there was a further statement that Mr. Gurdip Singh Uban 
could go in for further construction. 
On the basis of the said letter of the Joint Director it was contended 
by Shri Gurdip Singh Uban in his I.As that inasmuch as he has made further F 
construction pursuant to the permission granted by the Joint Director allowing 
him to approach the M.C.D. with his plans, he had made further construction 
and, therefore, it would not be equitable to allow the land acquisition to go 
on in respect of this property. He, therefore, sought permission to file an 
application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. In response to this 
submission learned Solicitor General of India filed written submission as G 
follows (as recorded in the judgment dated 18th August 2000): 
"In a case where the Joint Director (New Lease) of the Delhi 
Development Authority (DOA) has expressly represented that the 
proceedings stand quashed, then the government would consider the 
question of de-notification under section 48 provided. 
H 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
(a) The applicant who has constructed upon the land is the original 
owner and was the owner prior to the issuance of the notification · 
under section 4. It is made expressly clear that even those transferees 
who have acquired the land with permissions/NOCs under the Delhi 
Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 are not covered by this. 
B 
(b) The construction has been made after obtaining the approval of 
the MCD for the building plans. 
(c) the constructions as exists is in strict compliance with the sanctioned 
plans and does not exceed the maximum built up area permissible in 
respect 

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