LexSHANTI SPORTS CLUB & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 710 A SHANTI SPORTS CLUB & ANR. ~ v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8500-8501 of 2001) B AUGUST 25, 2009 [B.N. AGRAWAL AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] /Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ,.+ ' c s. 48(1) - Withdrawal from acquisition of land - HELD: Can be done only by issuing a notification in the official Gazette - Note recorded by Minister in the file cannot be relied upon to plead before Court that the Government had taken decision to withdraw from acquisition - Even if the D competent authority records its opinion in the file on merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed /T as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order under Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2) of the Constitution - Government's E subsequent decision not to withdraw from a,cquisition of the land in question as communicated to the parties concerned does not suffer from vice of discrimination/arbitrary exercise of power/non-application of mind- Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 77(1) and (2) and 166(1) and (2) - -->-- F Administrative Law - Opinion of competent authority in the file, requirements to term if as decision of Government. Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972: s. 3 - Prohibition against transfer of acquired lands - Land acquired in terms of Land Acquisition Act transferred by _.,. G land owners after completion of acquisition proceedings - Constructions raised thereon - HELD: Even if any sale Jr- transactions did take place, the same will have to be treated as void in view of express prohibition contained in s. 3 - Equity . H 710 SHANTI SPORTS CLUB & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 711 & ORS. cannot be pleaded on ground of huge expenditure incurred A ~ on construction, to seek court's intervention for protection of unauthorized construction raised on acquired lands - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Equity. Urban Development: B ~ Town planning - Transfer of acquired land and constructions raised thereon in violation of statutory provisions -+.- - HELD: Object of planned development can be achieved by rigorous enforcement of master plans - It is high time that executive and political apparatus of State take serious view c of the menace of illegal and unauthorized constructions by affluent class of builders and others . . ~· •.,.:'"4 Large tracts of lands were acquired in terms of Notifications u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 D \( issued between 13.11.1959 and 23.1.1965 for planned development of Delhi. The acquisition was upheld by the Supreme Court1. In respect of the land in question, notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 23.1.1965, the declaration u/s 6 was published on 23.12.1968, and the E award was made on 22.12.1982. Meanwhile, the lands were transferred by sale-deed dated 31.1.1969 and constructions raised thereon. In the writ petitions ~ challenging other notifications as also the notification with regard to the lands in question, the Full Bench of the F High Court2 declined to interfere, but observed that the petitioners would be at liberty to make representation to the authorities concerned for release of the land. On appeal, the Supreme Court3 held the constructions raised by the writ petitioners as unauthorized. The Court also G recorded the statement of the counsel for the State that the Government would consider each of the structures """ . 1. Roshnara Begum vs. Union of India AIR 1996 Delhi 206. 2. Aflatoon vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1975 (1) SCR 802. 3. Murari v. Union of India 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 313. H 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A . and take a decision thereon. Appellant No. 2 who came to be in possession of the lands in question through some arrangements with the transferees of sale deed dated 31.1.1969, between 1990 8 and 1993, got appellant no. 1 Club registered under the Societies Registration Act and constructed a complex over the acquired lands in the name of appellant no. 1 Club, contrary to the provisions of s. 3 of the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972 and without making C any application for sanction of the building plans. After the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court, appellant no. 2 filed representations for release of the land u/s 48 (1) of the Act on the ground that several parcels of acquired lands had already
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.