LexMANDIR SHREE SITARAMJI @ SHREE SITARAM BHANDAR versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
MANDIR SHREE SITARAMJJ @ SHREE SITARAM BHANDAR
A
v.
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS.
AUGUST 24, 2005
[S.N. VARIAVA AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Section 4, Part Vll-Acquisition of land for planned development of
Delhi-Portion of the acquired property allotted to Cooperative Societies-
Chal!enge to acquisition for non-compliance with provisions of Part Vll-
Held, entire acquisition was for 'planned development of Delhi '-Even if
appellant's land was allotted to society after acquisition, it would not mean
tha{ acquisition was for society-Hence there was no need to comply with
provision of Part-VII.
Section 48-Acquisition of land-Withdrawal of-Plea of appellant that
Government formulated a scheme by which parties were permitted to develop
their own land and acquisition of land of such parties be withdrawn
Substainability of-Held: Not sustainable, as scheme applicable to persons
who own and possess the land-Possession of appellant's land had already
been taken thus not applicable to land of appellant-Even under Section 48,
once possession was taken, the Governn1ent could not withdraw from the
acquisition.
On 13.11.1959, a Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition
B
c
D
E
Act was issued for acquisition of app. 35,000 acres of land for "planned F
development of Delhi". Amongst the lands sought to be acquired, were
Appellants' land of app. 68 acres. Large number of persons including
appellant challenged the Notification and this court quashed the Notification
Another Notification dated 13.3.1975 proposing to acquire app. 300 bighas
for "planned development of Delhi" was issued. The Appellants again
challenged the proposed acquisition by filing a Writ Petition which was
dismissed.
In appeal to this court, Appellants contended that the acquisition is
not for "planned development of Delhi" but for a cooperative society; and
G
that the provisions of Part Vil of the Land Acquisition Act have not been H
969
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A complied with and therefore the acquisition is bad and should be set aside;
that the Government has formulated a scheme by which parties are
permitted to develop their own land and hence appellants may be permitted
to develop the land in accordance with the norms given by Delhi
Development Authority and for this reason also the acquisition should be
B
quashed.
Respondents contended that the acquisition was effectively of 35000
acres of land in pursuance of Notification under Section 4 issued in 1959
and land all around Appellant's land was acquired in pursuance of the
earlier Notification; that when there is acquisition of such a large area of
C land, it is not possible to specify in detail what the exact purpose of
acquisition is; that Delhi Development Authority, for whom the land has
been acquired, cannot develop 35000 acres on its own and therefore, it has
become necessary to give various portions of land to various societies for
the purposes of development however it does not mean that the acquisition
D
is for the purposes of those societies.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. There is no merit in the challenge to the proposed
acquisition on the ground that the acquisition was for the purposes of the
E
society. The subsequent Notification is merely a follow up of the earlier
Notification. The entire acquisition is for "planned development of Delhi".
The Appellants' land is in the midst of the 35000 acres which have been
acquired pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 issued in 1959. The
Society is to be allotted some land and even if Appellants' land is allotted
to this Society, after acquisition, it will not mean that the acquisition was
F
for this Society. Therefore, the provisions of Part VII of the Land
Acquisition Act need not have been complied with. (974-D, E)
G
Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., [1975) 1 SCR
597 and Ajlatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, [1975) 4 SCC 285, referred to.
2. Perusal of scheme shows that it only applies in respect of persons/
agencies who own and possess the land. In this case possession of the land
had already been taken. The scheme also categorically states that the
scheme would not take away the rights of the Delhi Development Authority
to acquire for development of Delhi. Thus the scheme was not applicable
H to lands of the Appellants. Even under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition
•,Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.