LexM/S. MEENA DEVI JINDAL MEDICAL INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE versus LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 379 M/S. MEENA DEVI JINDAL MEDICAL INSTITUTE A & RESEARCH CENTRE v. LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ORS. (Civi!AppealNo: 1431 of2008) B MARCH 29, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Notifications under - Challenge to - Appellant challenged notification uls. 4 contending C that the purpose of acquisition in the notification was vague stating to be planned development nf Delhi but not specifying for what specific purpose of planned development of Delhi - High Court dismissed the writ petition - On appeal, held: Section 3(/) of the Act defines public purpose for which acquisition can be made under D the Act - The definition of public purpose is inclusive of s.3f (iii) which states that acquisition for planned development of land in pursuance of any scheme or policy would befor public purpose - The scheme contained in the zonal plan for Delhi indicated the planned development of Delhi wherein the area was reserved for institutional purposes - Thus, once planned development of Delhi was specified that had to be read with the zonal plan applicable in the area in question - Thus, it could not be said thqt the notification was vague or suffered with any legal vice - The acquisition was for public purpose as the planned development of Delhi is by itself"a. public purpose - Notification issued was as per zonal plan which was binding upon all concerned and could not be departed - Delhi Development Act, 1957. Words and phrases - "Institution" - Meaning of. in context of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. E F Munshi Singh & Ors. v. Union of India [1973) 1 SeR G 973 : (1973) 2 sec 337 - distinguished. Ajlatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. [1975) 1 SCR 802 : (1975) 4 SCC 285; Nand Kishore Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2010) 11 SCR 356 : (2010) 10 Sec 282 - relied on. H 379 380 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. Union of India & Ors. v. Krishan Lal Arne/a & Ors. [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 801 : (2004) 8 sec 453; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombar v. Industrial Development Investment Co. P] Ltd. (1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 551 : (1996) 11 SCC 501; Bhagat Singh v. State of UP & Ors. (1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 404 : (1999) 2 SCC 384 - referred to. Case Law Reference [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 801 referred to Para6 [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 551 referred to Para 6 [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 404 referred to Para8 [1975] 1 SCR 802 relied on Para 10 [1973] 1 SCR 973 distinguished Para 12 [2010] 11 SCR 356 relied on Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1431 of2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 03 .03.2005 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.1479of1982. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Ramesh Singh, A. T. Patra, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ad vs. for the Appellant. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Nitya Madhusoodhnan, Vishnu B. Saharya, Yiresh B. Saharya, M/s. Saharya & Co., Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Ad vs. for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER J. The appeal has been preferred by the Mis. Meena Devi Jindal Medical Institute and Research Centre questioning the judgment and G order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on March 03, 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1479 of 1982 repelling the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') as per the Notification issued on 19.3 .1981. Enquiry under Section SA of the Act was held. The objections preferred H MIS. MEENA DEVI JINDAL MEDICAL INSTITUTE & 381 RESEARCH CENTRE v. LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ORS. by the appellant were duly considered and rejected. Thereafter A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21" September, 1981. Appellant/Petitioner filed writ petition before the High Court of Delhi questioning the land acquisition proceedings in the year I 982. 2. The facts unfold that one Smt. Kanso Devi (since deceased) was owner of the property. She had entered into an agreement dated B 21.04.1979 with Rank Television Pvt. Ltd. for construction of group housing society. Appellant No.1 herein claims to be registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it was formed with the object to establish and maintain hospitals for philanthropic purpose and it entered into a lease agreement with owner Kan so Devi on 3. 1. I 98 L, The lease agreement has been concurred by Rank Television Pvt. Lt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.