9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Delay in completing the acquisition proceedings. 3. Validity of multiple declarations under Section 6 of the Act. 4. Application of Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. 5. Withdrawal of acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. 6. Acquisition of land with existing structures and green areas. Summary: 1. Challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Various notifications u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued between 1959 and 1965 for the planned development of Delhi. The appellants challenged these notifications and subsequent declarations u/s 6 on various grounds, including the validity of multiple declarations and the delay in finalizing the acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed these challenges, referencing previous decisions, including Aflatoon & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1974), which upheld the validity of such notifications and declarations. 2. Delay in completing the acquisition proceedings: The appellants argued that the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings deprived them of fair compensation, as the market value of the land increased significantly over time. The Court acknowledged the delay but noted that it was partly due to the landowners' own actions, such as filing numerous objections and writ petitions. The Court upheld the view from Ram Chand vs. Union of India (1994) that quashing the acquisition proceedings due to delay would not be appropriate, but directed the payment of additional compensation at 12% per annum from two years after the Aflatoon decision until the award date. 3. Validity of multiple declarations under Section 6 of the Act: The appellants contended that issuing more than one declaration u/s 6 from a single notification u/s 4 was not permissible. The Court referred to the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967, which allows multiple declarations from a single notification. This amendment was upheld in Uday Ram Sharma vs. Union of India (1968) and reaffirmed in Aflatoon's case, thus dismissing the appellants' contention. 4. Application of Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957: The appellants argued that the land designated for compulsory acquisition under the master plan should be acquired within six months of notice u/s 55 of the Delhi Development Act, failing which the acquisition should be deemed abandoned. The Court found no merit in this argument, noting that the land acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act overrides the six-month period specified in the Delhi Act. The Court agreed with the High Court's view that Section 55 does not inhibit the acquisition of land for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Withdrawal of acquisition under Section 48 of the Act: The appellants claimed that the government had withdrawn certain lands from acquisition, and thus the entire acquisition process should be quashed. The Court examined the original records and found no valid order for withdrawal. It held that withdrawal u/s 48 requires a notification in the official gazette, which was not done. The Court upheld the High Court's view that mere communication of a misconstrued order does not constitute a valid withdrawal. 6. Acquisition of land with existing structures and green areas: The appellants argued that land with existing structures and designated green areas should not be acquired. The Court noted that recreational facilities are part of the planned development and cannot be excluded. It also stated that structures built without necessary approvals after the notification u/s 4 cannot be exempted from acquisition. The Court left the decision on existing structures to the discretion of the government. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the acquisition proceedings. It directed payment of additional compensation at 12% per annum from two years after the Aflatoon decision until the award date, calculated with reference to the market value on the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. No order as to costs was made.
|
