LexRAJINDER KISHAN GUPTA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A B [2010] 10 S.C.R. 172 RAJINDER KISHAN GUPTA AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6811 of 2010) AUGUST 20, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978: s. 45 - Acquisition of land for construction works relating to metro C railways in the metropolitan cities - Applicability of Land Acquisition Act - Held: s. 45 makes it clear that the authorities are free to apply the Metro Railways Act and acquire any land for such construction work, but at the same time, there is no specific prohibition in the Metro Railways Act from applying D the Land Acquisition Act to acquire any land for the said purpose - In view of urgency and in the absence of similar urgency clause in the Metro Railways Act as that of Land Acquisition Act, the Government can issue a fresh notification for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act - 'On facts, plea E that acquisition of private land was not justified a~ government land adjoining to the land in question was available - Plea not accepted as the adjoining land belonging to DOA was notified as reserved forests - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition F Act, 1894 was issued to acquire vast tract of agricultural land including that of appellants for the planned development of Delhi. The appellants challenged the acquisition before the High Court by filing writ petitions. After dismissal of the writ petitions, the appellants filed G appeal before the Supreme Court, which directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the possession of the land in question. Thereafter, Delhi Metro Railway Corporation (DMRC) filed applications for impleadment/ H 172 RAJINDER KISHAN GUPTA AND ANR. v. UNION OF 173 INDIA AND ORS. modification of order of status quo on the ground that the A land admeasuring 26,187 sq. mtrs. was required urgently for the construction of Chattarpur Metro Station. The Court allowed the application for impleadment and clarified the order to the effect that DMRC was free to proceed with the fresh acquisition in accordance with B law. Pursuant to the same, fresh notification dated 04.06.2009 was published by the concerned authority exercising powers under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)(4) of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 for the acquisition of the land of the appellants. c A writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging the said action and the entire acquisition. The High Court dismissed the petition. In the instant appeals, the appellants contended that since the acquisition of the land was for DMRC and there D was a specific Act, namely, the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, the authorities were not justified in invoking the urgency provision in the Land Acquisition Act by dispensing with the enquiry under Section SA of the said Act and that the Government land E adjoining to the land in question was available and therefore, the acquisition of a private land belonging to the appellants was not justified. Dismissing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1. In the instant case, the acquisition of land was for public purpose. There was urgency in executing the project before the commencement of Common Wealth Games. Section 45 of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 makes it clear that if any land is G required for the construction works relating to metro railways in the metropolitan cities, the authorities are free to apply the Metro Railways Act and acquire any land. But at the same time, there is no specific prohibition in the H 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A Metro Railways Act from applying the Land Acquisition Act to acquire any land for a ·public purpose, more particularly, for the construction works relating to metro railways in the metropolitan cities. Although special enactment, namely, Metro Railways Act, 1978 was B available, in view of urgency and in the absence of similar urgency clause in the Metro Railways Act as that of Land Acquisition Act, the Delhi Government was justified in issuing a fresh notification for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. [Paras 6, 8) [178-8-F; 180-D-F] c S.S. Darshan v. State of Karnataka and Others, (1996) 7 sec 302 - relied on. 2. Land acquisition proceedings can be challenged only by. the "person-interested" and none else. On this D ground also, the cla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.