1992 (11) TMI 274 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notifications issued u/s 4, 6, 9, and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Denial of personal hearing u/s 5A of the Act.
3. Exclusion of wakf property from acquisition.
4. Delay, laches, and acquiescence in filing the writ petition.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notifications:
The appeal by Ramjas Foundation challenged the Delhi High Court's dismissal of their writ petition against the notifications issued u/s 4, 6, 9, and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notifications pertained to the acquisition of land for the planned development of Delhi.

2. Denial of Personal Hearing:
The appellants contended that their objections u/s 5A were rejected without a personal hearing, which they argued was mandatory. However, the court found that the appellants were represented by an advocate who was given a personal hearing, as evidenced by the Land Acquisition Collector's order dated 23.2.1968 (Annexure 'X'). The court held that the appellants' claim of not being heard was baseless and factually incorrect.

3. Exclusion of Wakf Property:
The appellants argued that their land, being used for educational and charitable purposes, should have been excluded from acquisition as wakf property. Alternatively, they contended that if the notification excluded only Muslim wakf properties, it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court did not find merit in these arguments and did not express an opinion on this issue due to the dismissal on other grounds.

4. Delay, Laches, and Acquiescence:
The court emphasized the significant delay in challenging the notifications. The notification u/s 4 was issued in 1959, and those u/s 6 were issued in 1968 and 1969, but the appellants did not challenge them until 1973. The court cited the precedent set in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor Delhi, where similar delays led to the dismissal of writ petitions. The court found no justification for the delay and held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of laches and delay.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and all interim orders were vacated. The court declined to express any opinion on other questions of law raised in the appeal.