OM PRAKASH, ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 03-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
OM PRAKASH, ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY 
OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN, 
NEW DELHI, & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 3, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Whether the Lt. Governor of Delhi 
A 
B 
is competent to issue notification under section 4( 1) thereof for the 
acquisition of lands for planned development of De/hi-Effect of the C 
enactment of the Delhi Development Act 1957 on the provisions of the 
Land Acquisition Act. 
The petitioners challenged before the High Court the validity of a 
notification issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi for the acquisition of 
lands in Delhi for "planned development of Delhi". The High Court D 
decided against the petitioners. The petitioners moved this court by 
special leave. Notice was issued by the Court to the respondents on a 
limited point-whether the Lt. Governor is competent to issue a notifi-
cation under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the 
acquisition of the lands for the "planned development of Delhi." 
Dismissing the petitions for special leave, the Court, 
HELD: Considering the notifications dated 19.8.1954, 1.11.56 and 
7-9-66 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of 
India under Article 239 (1) of the Constitution of India, the Lt. Gover-
E 
nor of Delhi is entitled to exercise the powers of the Central Govern-
F 
ment in Delhi under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and he 
was competent to issue the notification impugned. The argument that 
after the enactment of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the provisions 
of the Land Acquisition Act are no longer relevant in the present con-
text and the Lt. Governor has no jurisdiction or competence to issue the 
notification in question, Is not right. It is no doubt true that the Delhi G 
Development Act makes a separate mention of the Central Government 
and the Administrator of the Union Territory and demarcates some 
functions between the Central Government and the Administrator, but 
there can be no doubt that in the context of section 15 of the Delhi 
Development Act, it would not be correct to understand these two 
expressions in different senses. The Delhi Development Act does not H 
761 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] l S.C.R. 
A destroy bat only supplements the Land Acquisition Act. [763D-F; 767Gl 
,-y. 
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd le Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 
[1985] Supp. 3 SCR 382, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
B (Civil) No. 3631 of 1987. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.1986 of the Delhi 
High Court in C.W. No. 1943 of 1986. 
AND 
Special Leave Petitign (Civil) No. 4321of1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1987 of the Delhi High 
Court in R.A. No. 8 of 1987 in W.P. No. 2013 of 1986. 
D 
B.R:L. Iyenger, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik and Naresh Kaushik for 
E 
the Petitioner. 
V.B. Saharya for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATHAN, J. In both these matters, notice was given to 
the respondent on a limited point: whether the Lt. Governor of Delhi 
to competent is issue a notification under section 4( 1) of the Land 
Acquisition Act. 1894 ('the 1894 Act'), to acquire hand "for the plan-
ned development of Delhi". That is the ground on which, inter a/ia, 
F the petitioners unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court the 
validity of a notification dated 27.1.1984 issued by the Lt. Governor of 
Delhi (as the Head of the Delhi Administration) for the acquisition of. 
about 3550 hectares of land situated in Delhi. We have, therefore, 
heard counsel on this limited question. 
G 
Section 4( 1) of the !894 Act, insofar as it is relevant, reads as 
follows: 
H 
"4(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government 
that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be 
needed for any public purpose, a notification to that 
effect shall be publishea in the official Gazette 
,, 
\ 
). 
-
OM PRAKASH v. U.0.l. {RANGANATHAN, J.] 
763 
Section 3(ee) of the same Act defines "appropriate Government" A 
as follows: 
"In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the 
subject or context-
(ee) the expression "appropriate Government" means, in 
relation to acquisition of land for the purposes of the 
Union, the Central Government, and, in relation to 
acquisition of land for any other purposes, the State 
Government." 
A reference should also be made, in this context, to notifications 
issued under Article 23( 1)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.