2009 (8) TMI 1128 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the acquisition proceeding should be treated as having been abandoned on account of delay in making the awards and whether more than one award can be passed in respect of the land covered by the same notification? Whether the acquisition proceeding should be treated as having been abandoned on account of delay in making the awards and whether more than one award can be passed in respect of the land covered by the same notification? Whether the decision contained in letter dated 9.6.2000 is liable to be nullified on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution?

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Central Government's refusal to exercise discretion under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Validity of the acquisition process and subsequent construction on the acquired land.
3. Allegations of discrimination and arbitrariness in the government's decision not to de-notify the land.
4. Legal implications of unauthorized constructions on acquired land.
5. The requirement of issuing a notification for withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act.
6. The impact of notings in government files versus formal government orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Central Government's Refusal to Exercise Discretion under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appeals contested the Delhi High Court's decision to uphold the Central Government's refusal to withdraw from the acquisition of land in Village Masudpur, Delhi, under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court found that the government's decision was justified, emphasizing that the planned development of Delhi was a public purpose that could not be undermined by unauthorized constructions. The Court held that the government's refusal to de-notify the land was not arbitrary or discriminatory.

2. Validity of the Acquisition Process and Subsequent Construction on the Acquired Land:
The land in question was acquired through a notification dated 23.1.1965, with the award made on 22.12.1980. Despite this, unauthorized constructions were carried out by the appellants after acquiring possession of the land between 1990-1993. The Court noted that these constructions were made in violation of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, and without any sanctioned building plans. The Court emphasized that such unauthorized constructions could not be protected by the court.

3. Allegations of Discrimination and Arbitrariness in the Government's Decision Not to De-notify the Land:
The appellants argued that the government had de-notified other parcels of land and thus should have done the same for their land. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the appellants failed to provide concrete evidence that their situation was identical to those whose land had been de-notified. The Court reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution could not be invoked to perpetuate illegality or irregularity.

4. Legal Implications of Unauthorized Constructions on Acquired Land:
The Court highlighted that any transfer of acquired land is void under Section 3 of the 1972 Act. The appellants' possession and subsequent construction on the land were deemed illegal. The Court criticized the connivance of public servants who allowed such extensive unauthorized construction and stressed that such constructions could not be legalized or protected.

5. The Requirement of Issuing a Notification for Withdrawal from Acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act:
The Court held that any decision to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48(1) must be published in the official gazette to ensure transparency and allow for public scrutiny. This requirement prevents clandestine releases of land that could defeat the public purpose of acquisition.

6. The Impact of Notings in Government Files Versus Formal Government Orders:
The Court clarified that notings in government files, even by Ministers, do not constitute a formal decision of the government unless they are sanctified by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor and are published as required under Articles 77(2) and 166(2) of the Constitution. The notings or decisions recorded in files can be reviewed or overturned by higher authorities and do not confer any rights or obligations until formally issued and communicated.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the government's decision not to de-notify the land and emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and planned development schemes. The Court granted the appellants three months to vacate the land, subject to filing an undertaking that no further encumbrances would be created and no compensation would be claimed for the constructions made.

← Previous Next →