LILA RAM ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 19-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
• 
c 
D 
E 
""·. 
I 
F 
~ 
• 
G 
H 
LILA RAM ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. 
August 19, 1975 
fll. R. KHANNA, V. R. KRISHNA IYElt, A. C. GUPTA AND 
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
341 
Land Acquisition Ac;;t, Section 4--Execution of lnterini General Plo.•i for 
the Greater Delhi', if a public purpose for the purposes of the section. 
On September 3, 1957 the Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued a notifica· 
tion under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act fn respect of land measuring 
about 3)000 acres mentioned in the schedule attached to the notification. It was 
also stated that the land is Hkely to be required to be taken at the public expense 
for a public purpo5e, namely, for the execution of the Jnteritn General Plan for 
the Greater Delhi. 
The not.'..tication was published in the Delhi Gazette on 
September 12, 1957. 
Large tracts of land 
belonging to the 
appellant and 
situated in villages Garhi J aharia Maria and Zamurdupur were covered by the 
above notification. 
Declaration dated February 15, 1961 under section 6 of 
the Act in respect of the land of the appellant and some other lands covered by 
the above 
notification was 
published on February 23, 1961. 
On or about 
February 24, 1961 the appellant filed petit1on under article 226 of the Constitu· 
tion chaUenging the validity of the notification under section 4 Qf the Act on 
various grounds. It was argued on behalf of the appellant in the High Court 
that the acquisition. of the land was not for a public purpose. that the so·called 
public purpose was merely a colourable device for freez~.ng huge areas of land 
and that there· could not be successive declarations under section 6 of the Act 
in respect of the lands covered by one notification under section 4 of the Act. 
The High Court rejected the contentions and dismissed the writ petition. 
Dism~ssing the appeal. 
HELD : ( 1) The public purpose mentioned in the notification, nameJy. for 
the execution of the Interim General Plan for the Greater Delhi, is specific in 
the circumstances and does not suffer from any vagueness. The land covered by 
the notification is not a small plot, but a huge area covering thousands of acres. 
In such cases !t is difficult to insist upon greater precision for specifying the 
public purpose because it is quite possible that various plots covered by 
the 
notification may have to be utilised. for different purposes set out in the Interim 
General Plan. No objection was also taken by the appellant before the autho-
rities that the public purpose 
ment:oned in the notification was not specific 
enough and as such he was not able to file effective 
objections against the 
proposed acquisition. 
[343F-H, 344A] 
Mrmsln' Singh & Ors. v. Union df India [1973] I S.C.R. 973; Aflatoon & 
Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 
Ors. A.LR. rt9741 S.C. 2077 and Ratni Devi 
v. Chief Conunissi'oner W.P. Nos. 332 and 333 of 1971 decided on April 13, 
1975, referred to. 
(ii) The Interim General Plan was prepared and published by the Govern-
ment after aoproval by the Cabinet as a oolicy decision for 
development of 
Delhi as an interim measure till a 1\'1aster Plan could be made ready. In Afla· 
toon case this Court laid down that the planned development of Delhi was a 
oublic purpose for the purpose of sect'.on 4 of the Act. 
As the object of the 
Interim General Plan was to prev~nt haphazard arid unplanned development of 
Delhi and therebv ensure planned development of Delhi the execution of th~ 
Interim General Plan must be held to be a public purpOse for the purpose of 
section 4 of the Act. 
[3440-H. 345A] 
(iii) It is tn1e the effect of the notification under section 4 of the Act 
was to freeze the land, but that fact would not in any way affect the valid!.ty of 
the notification. 
The obiect of a notification under section 4 is to give public 
notice that it is proposed to acquire the land mentioned in the notification and 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 
that any one who deals in that land subseauent to the notification would do so 
at his own risk. 
According to section 23 of the Act, in determining the amount 
of compensat:on to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall 
take into consideration, besides other factors. the market-value of the land at 
the date of the publication of the notification under section 4. 
It is further pro~ 
vided in section 24 of the Act that the Court shall not take into consideration 
any outlay or improvement o

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