LexSITA RAM BHANDAR SOCIETY, NEW DELHI versus LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF N.C.T. DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 507 ~ > )!. SITA RAM BHANDAR SOCIETY, NEW DELHI A v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF N.C.T. DELHI & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4849-4850 of 2000) SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 B [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, SA, 6, 18 and· 48 - Land acquisition - Revenue official taking possession of 1933 bighas 2 biswas of land and handing over to beneficiary c department- Case of land owner that land was extensive and surrounded by boundary wall and symbolic possession was ~ meaningless and as such Government to withdraw from • acquisition u/s. 48 - On appeal, held: While taking r ,. -"" possession of a large area of land with a large number of D owners, it is not possible for Collector or Revenue Official. to enter each bigha or biswa and to take possession - Court is to adopt a pragmatic approach - On facts, appellant did not raise the question with regard to the presence of a wall, in the objections uls. SA- Collector adopted a proper procedure and E possession was taken over as per law - Land once having \ vested in the Government by virtue of s. 16, re-entry by land owner would not obliterate the consequences of vesting - More so, ·/and owner always tried to frustrate the acquisition, thus, deterrent action called for. F The question which arose for consideration in these appeals is whether the procedure adopted by the Naib Tehsildar, Land Acquisition while taking possession of the land was correct. G 1loo ., Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Land Acquisition Act provides a machinery for the acquisition of the land. An acquisition 507 H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A is set in motion by a Notification u/s. 4 when it is proposed to acquire any land for public purpose and s. SA envisages the filing of objections with regard. to-the proposed acquisition. After the objections u/s. SA have been considered and been found without merit,· a B declaration under Section 6 of the Act is published that the land is indeed required for a public purpose. Section 9 of the Act provides that after all the proceedings and certain other formalities have been completed the Collector shall give public notice that the Government c intends to take possession of the land and calling upon the persons interested to file their claims for compensation. The matter is then enquired into by the Collector who renders his award u/s. 11 of the Act and possession is taken by the Collector u/s. 16 on which the 0 land vests absolutely in the Government free from all ·encumbrances. [Para 7] [S18-B-F] 1.2. While taking possession of a large area of land with a large number of owners, it would be impossible for the Collector or the Revenue Official to enter each bigha E or biswa and to take possession thereof and that a pragmatic approach has to be adopted by the Court. It is also clear that one of the methods of taking possession and handing it over to the beneficiary department is the recording of a Panchnama which can in itself constitute F evidence of the fact that possession had been taken and the land had vested absolutely in the Government. [Para 9] [S21-E-F] 1.3. The Award was rendered on the 19th June 1980. As per the possession proceedings (Panchnama) G recorded by Naib Tehsildar dated the 20th June 1980, possession of 1933 bighas 2 biswas of land had been taken over and handed over to the Revenue Department on the 21st June 1980, 23rd June 1980 and 24th June H .:.. ,,. . SITA RAM BHANDAR SOCIETY, v. LT. GOVERNOR, 509 GOVT. OF N.C.T. DELHI ~ 1980. In the Panchnama it was also observed that the A land had been demarcated and pillars had been affixed and that the physical possession had further been handed over to the Tehsildar, the representative of the beneficiary department. Khasra No.157 was covered by this document. It is recorded that the possession of the 8, land under the built up area of 160 bighas 6 biswas could not be handed over and the details of this land have also -"' been provided in the document. Khasra No.157 does not come in this category. Appellant, however, emphasized that some material documents which show the c possession had not been taken on 20th June, as alleged, had been ignored by the Division Bench which he has referred to the Khasra Girdwaris for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 showing the existence of a Char Diwari. He -:' accordingly,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.