SMT. RATNI DEVI & ANR. versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 30-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

••
SMT. RA'INI DEVI & ANR. 
v. 
CHIEF COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS. 
April 30, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG ANDY. V. 
CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J 
Land Acquisition Act-Section 4, 
validity of-Co1npensation 
related to 
:S. 4 notification-Vagueness of public purpose. 
361 
A 
B 
The Government set up Town Planning Organisation in 1955 which pre~ 
pared an interim general Plan for Delhi in 1956. The influx of displaced per-
C 
rons after partition of the country, the growth of slum, the problems of over-
.crowding, insanitation, traffic hazards, sub-standard construction and 
lack of 
proper civic amenities Jed the Government to take effective measures. to ensure 
orderly and planned development of the city. The Plannin_g is to provide for 
different classes of people who have to live and work in the city of Delhi. 
The plan has to provide for bona fide requirements of the public for residential; 
industrial and commercial purposes and to ensure healthy and prOperly planned 
<levelopment of Delhi. The Government decided to acquire 34070 acres ,of 
:D 
land in and around the city. The land was acquired after issuing notification 
under se.ction 4 and section 6. 
· 
The petitioners in the present petition contended, 
(1) Compensation which is related to date of notification unde1 
section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is bad. 
(2) The planned development of Delhi is vague and, therefore, the 
E 
acquisition is bad. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELD : (i) The question about the payment of the compensation as on 
the date of the section 4 notification has been held to be valid by this Court 
in the case of Afiatoon. There is a provision for payment of interest at the 
rate of 6 per cenl of. the market value after the expiry of 3 years from the 
date of notification under s. 4 to the date of payment of compensation. Again, 
any outlay er improvement made after the date of s. 4 notification with the 
-sanction of the Collector has to be taken into consideration in awarding oom-
pensation. [363 C-EJ 
(ii) This Court has also held that the planned development of Delhi 
is 
.a public ·pur(X)se in Aflatoon's case. It was held in that case· that in the case 
()f an acquisition of a Jarge area of land comprising several plots belonging 
to different persons the specification of the purpose can only be with reference 
to acquisition of the ~1hole area. The notification which was for the acquisition 
of over 30,000 acres of land in the very nature of things could not specify 
each particular purpose and, therefore, the planned development of Delhi was 
of sufficient particularly. [363 G-H] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 332 and 333 of 
1971. 
, 
From the judgment and order dated 13-8-1970 of the High Court 
of Delhi in L.P.A. Nos: 125 and 126 of 1970. 
D. P. Singh, (In W.P. No. 333/71) and C.A. No. 609/72), 
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and V. !. Francis, for appellants in ap-
peals. 
' 
F 
G 
H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] SUPP· s.c.R. 
A 
S. N. Prasad and R .· N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. 1-3 in 
W.Ps. and respondents in appeals. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
' 
RAY, C.J.-Thcrc arc two principal questions in these writ peti.-
B tions and civil appeals. First. is compensation which is related to the 
date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 
referred to as the Act bad ? Second, is planned development of Delhi 
bad and vague ? 
This Court in Afloatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. 
A.LR. 1974 S.C. 2077 held that the notification :dated 13 November, 
C 1959 under section 4 of the Act which is also being challenged in 
these writ petitions and appeals is beyond challooge now. 
' 
Piecemeal acquisition which was held to be bad in State of Madhya 
Pradesh & Ors. v. Vishnu Prai·ad Shanna & Ors. 
(1966) 3 S.C.R. 
557 was validated by the Land Acquisition Amendment and Validation 
D Act with retrospective effect. The validity of the Amending Act has 
been upheld by this Court in Udai Ram Sharma & Ors. v. U11i01t of 
India & Ors. (1968) 3 S.C.R. 41 and reaffirmed in Aflatoort.'s cue 
(supra). 
The contention that piecemeal acquisition under Notification dated 
E 13 November, 1959 under section 4 of the Act is bad is really 
a 
challenge to the adequacy of compensation under section 23 of the 
Act. The Act is protected under Article 31 ( 5) of the Constitution. 
Where acquisition is for public purpose reasonableness is prerumed 
for such public purpose. The challenge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.