Brij Lal & ORS. v. Union Of India & ORS.

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3095/2012 & CM No.4061/2014 BRIJ LAL & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. H.C. Mittal, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Deepika, Adv. for LAC/GNCT L&B Deptt.

Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Diviani Khanna, Adv. for DDA.

Mr. Pushkar Sood with Mr. Virendra K. Tiwari, Advs. for R-4/DMRC along with Mr. Puneet Garg, Law Officer.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

O R D E R

% 13.07.2017 1.

The petitioners seek a direction for quashing of a notification, issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 16.02.2012 acquiring his lands (hereafter called the "suit lands"), to the extent of 10 biswa (500 sq. yds.), located at Revenue Estate Aali, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi. 2.

The appropriate Government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 25.11.2009. At that time, the requirement of hearing was dispensed with before the issuance of declaration because the emergency clause under Section 17(1) was invoked. W.P.(C) No.3095/2012 Page 1 of 6

The petitioner along with his wife as owners of the suit property had approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.863/2010 questioning the wisdom and necessity of the respondents. The public purpose cited in the Section 4 notification was "construction of Central Secretariat - Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II". At the time of the first hearing of that writ petition, the Court had expressed its prima facie opinion that nothing appeared to have been planned as on date i.e. on 10.02.2010, with respect to the suit lands and that 90% of the petitioner's land appeared to fall within the said belt to the road. On the prima facie opinion, the Court granted maintenance of status quo between the parties. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed on 02.05.

2011, in view of the consent recorded on behalf of the DMRC that the petitioner's objections would be heard under Section 5A. The Court stated as follows:- "In view of the aforesaid consent recorded the impugned notification dated 25.11.2009 to the extent it invokes Section 17(1) & (4) of the LA Act and the subsequent declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act dated 12.3.2010 are quashed and the petitioners may file objections under Section 5A of the LA Act within thirty (30) days from today which objections will be decided in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid order the question of taking possession would not arise till the acquisition proceedings are completed in accordance with law and thus the interim orders would also stand accordingly vacated.

The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with costs of `10,000.00 to be paid by the DMRC. The costs imposed vide order dated 5.4.2011 be appropriated towards these costs."

W.P.(C) No.3095/2012 Page 2 of 6

3.

After the above order dated 02.05.2011, the petitioner preferred objections under Section 5A, on 01.06.2011. The sum and substance of this notification was that the DMRC did not need the suit lands and that they fell outside the boundaries and were in fact part of the said tract. The petitioner further asserted that there were other parts of acquired land which could satisfy the DMRC's needs, if it did not need any further land in the future. These objections were however turned down and eventually a notification was issued on 16.02.2012, declaring that two parcels of land measuring 421 Sq.mts. and 881 Sq.mts., were needed for a public purpose. These included the lands belonging to the petitioners i.e. the suit lands. In these circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court challenging a declaration under Section 6 on various grounds. The prominent ground being that the DMRC requiring the suit lands when in fact it had adequate land. The suit land which fell outside the said complex, was not needed. 4.

It is pointed out that 51.23 hectares of land has been handed over to DDA by LAC/L&B Department. Out of 31.68 hectares of land, DDA transferred 25.64 hectares land to the DMRC and the remaining 6.04 hectares land is lying vacant. The petitioners also points out that if the DMRC needs any more land, the land left out, which does not cover the suit lands could be more suitable. It is further urged that another parcel of land acquired by the DDA, fall on the same road leading to Village Aali just adjacent to the project of the DMRC and is available in addition for the DMRC's disposal. In short, these grounds urge that in the absence of any demonstrable need, the suit lands, should be kept out of acquisition and that the DMRC has no imminent requirement. According to the learned counsel, W.P.(C) No.3095/2012 Page 3 of 6

this clearly establishes that there is no public purpose that will sub-serve by the acquisition of the lands.

5.

The appropriate Government, the DDA and the DMRC have been impleaded. All of them have resisted these proceedings. The DDA points out that prior to the acquisition impugned in these proceedings, on 06.04.1964 other lands in the vicinity of the suit lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4. The DDA also states that the declaration under Section 6 in respect of those lands was made on 07.12.1966 and an Award No.3-97-98 was made. This resulted in vesting of other lands in the vicinity of the suit property, in Village Aali.

6.

Refuting the contentions of the petitioners, the DMRC submits that the materials on the record clearly show that there is no continued need for lands which include the suit lands. Learned counsel points out that the suit land is virtually surrounded by acquired lands which are used for the purposes of the Sarita Vihar Metro Depot and in fact it stands in the way of ingress and egress to the heavy vehicles which access the depot. It is further stated that the status quo has resulted in obstruction to the completion of the complex such as laying out of services i.e. internal roads, the electrification of wires, etc. It is therefore stated that the availability or otherwise of lands which are not contiguous to the acquired lands has no co-relation to the DMRC's need for the suit lands as part of its larger depot complex. 7.

It is evident from the above discussion that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier complaining that there was no urgency and the emergency clause invoked under Section 17, was an illegality. Since this Court was inclined to agree with that contention, DMRC conceded to grant a hearing rather than face an adverse order. Consequently, on 02.05.2011, the W.P.(C) No.3095/2012 Page 4 of 6

Section 17 order dispensing with the hearing was quashed. As a result, the petitioner was afforded the opportunity of registering objections which he did on 02.06.2011. The DMRC considered these objections and nevertheless proceeded ahead, by issuing the declaration, by which the suit lands were to be acquired, on 16.02.2012. As a matter of fact, the record would show that the award in respect of the suit lands too was completed on 30.12.2013. That award has subsequently been challenged to an amendment. However, the main grounds for challenge of the award are the same i.e. that the notification is not really for a public purpose. 8.

The materials on record in the form of sketches and the plan relied upon by the petitioner clearly show that the suit lands fall within the larger boundary of the DMRC's lands. The DMRC has stated on record - a fact which is not denied that all adjacent properties and lands have been taken over and in fact, have been developed as part of its depot complex. Clearly, what is apparent from the plan is that possession of the suit lands could not be taken on account of the interim orders and not because the suit lands are kept outside of the complex.

9.

As to the petitioners' contentions that there are other lands in the vicinity and in the same village, the Court is unpersuaded by the submission. The public purpose for which DDA had notified other lands differs from the public purpose for which lands were notified in the impugned notification. That the suit lands fall within the larger complex of the DMRC's requirements is quite evident from the record. In these circumstances, the objections made by the petitioner under Section 5A which have been virtually reiterated and on the basis of which interim orders have operated for the past 5 years and in the Court's opinion without any merit. W.P.(C) No.3095/2012 Page 5 of 6

The writ petition fails and is therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J S.P.GARG, J JULY 13, 2017 kks W.P.(C) No.3095/2012 Page 6 of 6