Delhi Development Authority vs Munni Lal .

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2362 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.27383 of 2015)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MUNNI LAL & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2363 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.27389 of 2015)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SWARUP SINGH & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the Delhi

Development Authority (for short, “the DDA”) aggrieved by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2018.02.22 the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the 17:31:04 IST Reason:

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi declaring that as the 2

physical possession has not been taken, the acquisition

has lapsed under the provision of Section 24(2) of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

(hereafter referred to as "the Act of 2013"). The facts,

in short, indicate that notification under section 4 was

issued on 5.4.1995 for the acquisition of land for

construction of Freight Complex (Narela) under Planned

Development of Delhi. The emergency provision of sub

Section 1 of section 17 read with section 17(4) was

invoked. It was ordered that the provision of section 5 A

shall not apply. Declaration under section 6 was issued

on 22.12.1995 for the purpose of acquisition of land and

the award was passed on 19.12.1997.

3. The petitioners-therein have filed writ petitions in

the year 1996, however, they have withdrawn the same in

2012 with prayer seeking liberty to file fresh writ

petition for quashing of the order rejecting the prayer

with respect to de-requisition of land passed on

19.04.2012. Thereafter, fresh writ petitions have been

filed in the year 2012. During the pendency of the writ

applications, the Act of 2013 came into force. The High 3

Court has quashed the acquisition; hence, the appeals

have been preferred.

4. With respect to whether acquisition had lapsed by

virtue of the provisions contained in section 24 of the

Act of 2013, the matter was referred to a larger bench

and the reference has been answered by three Judge Bench

of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs.

Shailendra (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.20982

of 2017) on 8.2.2018. In view of the answers to the

questions, the impugned orders quashing the acquisition

on the ground of Section 24 are liable to be quashed and

are set aside.

5. On merits of the case, the submissions raised on

behalf of the land owners are two-fold that when the

declaration under section 6 was issued after eight months

inquiry under section 5 A ought to have been held. Thus,

invocation of the urgency provision could not be said to

be proper. There was non-application of mind in respect

of invoking the provision under section 17 of Act of

1894. The second submission is that certain other area

has been de-notified on 31.5.1999 which was covered under

the same notification and the farm/ house in question is 4

the only accommodation available with the respondents-

herein which should have been de-notified. The rejection

of the prayer for de-notification vide orders dated

19.4.2012 was illegal.

6. It was submitted on behalf of the learned counsel

appearing for DDA that the acquisition was for Planned

Development of Delhi for Freight Complex at Narela, which

could not have been delayed as such invocation of urgency

provision was proper. The Planned Development of Delhi

could not have been delayed. Thus, notification of

urgency provision under section 17(1) and to dispense

with the inquiry under section 5 A was proper. While

declining the derequisition of the land reasoned orders

have been passed on 19.4.2012. No case for interference

is made out on the grounds urged on behalf of the land

owners.

7. Coming to the invocation of the urgency provision, in

our opinion, when the public purpose of freight complex

at Narela under Planned Development of Delhi was

involved, obviously, there was urgency and the project

was such that it could not have brooked any delay. Thus, 5

invocation of section 17 was proper. Merely by the fact

that declaration under section 6 was issued in December,

it could not be said that invocation of the urgency

provision under section 17(1) and 17(4) was improper.

The satisfaction of Lt. Governor as mentioned in the

notification in the facts of the case was not appropriate

considering the nature of the requirement. We are

satisfied that notification under section 4 read with

section 17(1) and 17(4) did not suffer with illegality.

8. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Union of

India & Ors v. Mukesh Hans etc. 2004 (8) SCC 14. The

decision cannot be said to be applicable as there was an

earlier acquisition which was allowed to be lapsed by

efflux of time. The authority who dispensed with the

inquiry was not made aware of the fact, thus, the

decision has no application. Reliance has also been

placed on the decision of this Court in Anand Singh &

Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2010 (11) SCC 242.

In the said case the identification of land was for

Housing Colony. There was a gap of one year in

declaration under section 6. However, the appellants were

not granted any relief in the facts of the said case. It 6

was observed that section 17(4) should be invoked in

appropriate cases. There is no dispute with the

aforesaid proposition. However, in the instant case

considering the nature of the requirement and facts of the

case, we find that invocation of the urgency clause was

appropriate.

9. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this

Court in Ramdhari Jindal Memorial Trust v. Union of India

& Ors, 2012 (11) SCC 370. It was again a residential

scheme which was involved and in the facts of the said

case, this Court directed the inquiry to be made. The

decision is of no application to the facts of the instant

case. Reliance has also been placed on Narain Govind

Gavate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1977 (1) SCC

133 which rather negates the case of respondents. Be that

as it may, other cases relied upon are Dev Sharan & Ors.

v. State of U.P. Ors. JT 2011 (3) SC 102, State of Punjab

& Anr. v. Gurdial Singh & Anr., 1980 (2) SCC 471, Hari

Ram & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010 (3) SCC 621,

Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2012 (9) SCC 503.

Each case has to be decided on its own facts. We find

that there was an urgency in the present case and the 7

requirement was urgent as such the provision was rightly

invoked in the case.

10. In the second round of the litigation the aforesaid

question is being again raised, though permission was

sought to withdraw the earlier writ petition with liberty

inter alia to question the order relating to de-

notification and accordingly, the liberty was granted.

Facts remain that dilatory tactics have been adopted by

respondents. There was no formal defect and it was not

appropriate to withdraw writ petitions after so much

period of 16 years. We are not satisfied on merits with

respect to the submission raised by learned counsel for

the land owners and they have clearly adopted delaying

tactics.

11. When we come to the question of de-requisition it is

apparent that the order dated 19.4.2012 in the matter of

Swarup Singh clearly indicate that the representation

dated 27.8.2010 was actively considered by the De-

notification Committee in its meeting held on 22.7.2011.

The Committee did not recommend the de-notification under

section 48(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the

land was required by the DDA for relocation of Chemical 8

Godowns and Development of Freight Complex at Narela

under Planned Development of Delhi and the matter was

placed before the Lt. Governor who after due

consideration of the facts has rejected the prayer for

de-notification of captioned land. Mind has been applied

and considering the necessity, decision has been taken

not to de-notify the land. The decision is appropriate

and we find no infirmity in the same. Similar is the

reasoning given in the case of Munnilal & Ors in the

communication dated 19.4.2012. We find no infirmity in

the same also.

12. Thus, in our opinion, the submissions urged on behalf

of the land owners deserve to be rejected and appeals

deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the

impugned order and allow these appeals. The writ

petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court

are ordered to be dismissed. No costs.

................J. (ARUN MISHRA)

................J. (AMITAVA ROY) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 21, 2018 9

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV (For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).27383/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-11-2014 in WPC No.4650/2012 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MUNNI LAL & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH SLP(C) No.27389/2015 (XIV)

Date : 21-02-2018 These matters were called on for pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Binu Tamta,AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy,AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra pronounced the

judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy.

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed with no costs in terms of the signed judgment.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Sarita Purohit) (Suman Jain) Court Master Branch Officer

(Signed Judgment is placed on the file)