2010 (11) TMI 936 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the land belonging to appellant No.1 is exempted from acquisition in terms of clause (d) of notification dated 13.11.1959 was not decided in the first case and the appeal was dismissed mainly on the ground of delay and contumacious conduct of the appellants? Whether the land belonging to appellant No.1 is Wakf property and is exempted from acquisition?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of land acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Exemption from acquisition on the grounds of the property being Wakf.
3. Alleged violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
4. Interpretation of the term "Wakf property" in the context of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. Conduct of the appellants in the litigation process.

Detailed Analysis:

Validity of Land Acquisition:
The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for planned development. The acquisition was initiated by a notification dated 13.11.1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The objections filed by the appellants under Section 5-A of the Act were rejected, and subsequent notifications under Section 6 were issued. The acquisition was contested in multiple legal proceedings, but the courts consistently upheld the validity of the acquisition.

Exemption from Acquisition on Grounds of Wakf Property:
The appellants argued that their land was exempt from acquisition as it was a Wakf property, as per clause (d) of the notification dated 13.11.1959. They claimed that the land was dedicated for charitable purposes by Rai Sahib Kedar Nath, who had created a Wakf. However, the respondents contested this, stating that the land was not a Wakf property as it was not created by a Muslim. The courts found that the dedication made by Rai Sahib Kedar Nath was for a public charitable trust, not a Wakf, and thus, the land was not exempt from acquisition.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The appellants contended that the notification under the Land Acquisition Act was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. They argued that if their property, dedicated for charitable purposes, was not treated as Wakf, it would result in discrimination. The courts did not find merit in this argument, noting that the appellants had not pressed this point before the learned Single Judge or taken it up in their grounds of appeal.

Interpretation of "Wakf Property":
The term "Wakf property" in the notification was interpreted in its legal and technical sense as understood in Muslim Law. The courts held that the term could not be extended to include properties dedicated for charitable purposes by non-Muslims. The dedication by Rai Sahib Kedar Nath, which involved Hindu religious ceremonies like Samarpan and Sankalp, was not considered to create a Wakf but a public charitable trust.

Conduct of the Appellants:
The appellants were criticized for not approaching the court with clean hands. They had suppressed material facts and engaged in a game of hide and seek by initiating multiple legal proceedings and not disclosing the outcomes of previous cases. The Supreme Court noted that the appellants' conduct was blameworthy and that they had polluted the stream of justice by making false statements and suppressing facts.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellants had not approached the court with clean hands and had failed to prove that their property was a Wakf. The courts consistently found that the property was a public charitable trust and not exempt from acquisition. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of good faith and full disclosure in legal proceedings and reiterated that those who attempt to mislead the court are not entitled to relief. The respondents were allowed to proceed with the planned development of the acquired land.

← Previous Next →