MURARI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 01-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MURARI AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER I, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Sections 4 and 6-Acquisition of land 
for planned development of Delhi-Delay in making of award and taking 
over possession of /and-Whether acquisition proceedings can be quashed 
Held no. 
Sections 4 and 6-Sing/e notification under Section 4-Severa/ 
declarations under Section 6 relating to land notified under Section 4-
Permissibility of 
A 
B 
c 
Sections 11 (I) and 23 (])-Acquisition of land for planned D 
development of Delhi-Land within ceiling limit and in personal 
cultivation-Whether second proviso to Article 31-A applicable-
Constitution of India-Second proviso to Article ) 1-A. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4-Acquisition of land for 
planned development of Delhi-Whether the acquisition can be presumed E 
to be under Delhi Development Act-Delhi Development Act, 1957-
Sections 55 and 15(1). 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Section 4-Notification for acquisition 
of several thousand acres of land-Some lands released from notification F 
subsequently-Whether notification in respect of other lands also invalid-
Constitution of India-Article 14. 
Interpretation of Statute-Relevance of report of the Public Accounts 
Committee-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 6. 
G 
For the planned development of Delhi, several thousand acres 
ofland was sought to be acquired and various notifications were issued 
between 1959 and 1969 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 
for the said purpose. Declarations under Section 6 of the Land 
Acquisition Act were made between 1966 and 1969. 
H 
313 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
In 1957, Delhi Development Act was enacted which, inter alia, 
under Section 55 provided for compulsory acquisition of land. Under 
the Delhi Development Act, acquisitions could be made only in 
accordance with the master plan and the zonal plan framed under 
the Act. In 1962, a master plan of Delhi was brought into force. 
B 
The acquisition proceedings were challenged by several persons 
on the grounds of delay in issuance of declaration under Section 6 of 
the Land Acquisition Act, vaguencess of the public purpose specified 
in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and so on. The 
matter came up before this Court and a Constitution Bench of this 
Court dismissed the appeals of the landlords and upheld the 
C acquisition proceedings. The judgment has been reported in Ajlatoon 
and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, [197511 SCR 802. 
The judgment in Aflatoon was pronounced on August 23, 1974. 
However, the awards were not made till 1980-81 and in some cases till 
D 1983. In Ram Chand v. Union of India reported in [1994) I SCC 44 this 
court, while declining to quash the acquisition proceedings having 
regard to larger public interest, held that there was no justification 
for the delay in acquirng the land after the pronouncement of the 
judgment in Ajlatoon and directed payment of additional amount of 
compensation to be calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum 
E after the expiry of two years from the date of judgment in Aflatoon 
till the date of making of the award by the Collector to be calculated 
with reference to the market value of the land on the date of 
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 
F 
The appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings by way 
G 
of several Writ Petitions before the High Court, some of which were 
dismissed by the High Court. Against the orders of dismissal, appeals 
were tiled before this Court. This Court also transferred all other 
Writ Petitions pending before the High Court to this Court. 
The following contentions were raised by the appellants before 
this Court. 
I. The inordinate delay in completing the acquisition proceedings 
and taking over possession of the land deprived the landlords of 
H reasonable and real price of land as the land prices had gone up 
MURARl v. U.O.l. 
315 
many times from the date of the notification under Section 4 of the A 
Land Acquisition Act to the date of making of award and taking 
possession of the properties. The purpose for which the land was sought 
to be acquired, that is, for the planned development of Delhi, has lost 
its value due to delay as the life span of the master plan for Delhi 
itself was 20 years only. 
B 
The appellants relied upon the report of Public Accounts 
Committee which stated that the Delhi Developm

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