1995 (12) TMI 392 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquisition proceedings and their validity.
2. Unreasonable delay in completing acquisition proceedings.
3. Validity of multiple awards under a single Section 6 declaration.
4. Interpretation of Section 55 of the Delhi Development Authority Act.
5. Validity of awards made without proper notice under Sections 9 and 10.
6. Validity of awards made without funds for compensation.
7. Validity of acquisition proceedings for land previously designated as evacuee property.
8. Validity of acquisition proceedings where public purpose has allegedly ceased to exist.
9. Validity of acquisition proceedings where land is shown as "green" in the Master Plan.
10. Validity of acquisition proceedings where construction has already been made on the land.
11. Validity of acquisition proceedings where there has been an alleged assurance of non-acquisition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquisition Proceedings and Their Validity:
The challenge in all writ petitions pertains to the acquisition proceedings for land in Delhi for planned development. Various notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued, and subsequent declarations under Section 6 followed. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the validity of these notifications and declarations in Aflatoon Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, confirming that planned development of Delhi is a public purpose.

2. Unreasonable Delay in Completing Acquisition Proceedings:
The petitioners argued that the delay in completing acquisition proceedings amounted to abandonment. The court acknowledged the extraordinary delay but noted that the Supreme Court, in Ram Chand Vs. Union of India, had chosen to award additional compensation instead of quashing the proceedings. The High Court followed this precedent, awarding additional interest of 12% per annum for awards made prior to 1982.

3. Validity of Multiple Awards Under a Single Section 6 Declaration:
The court addressed whether multiple awards could be made under a single Section 6 declaration. It concluded that the Land Acquisition Act does contemplate making more than one award, particularly when different land holdings and owners are involved. This interpretation aligns with the administrative necessity of handling multiple claims and interests.

4. Interpretation of Section 55 of the Delhi Development Authority Act:
Section 55 was argued to imply that land designated for compulsory acquisition in the Master Plan must be acquired within a specific timeframe. The court found that the Master Plan did not specifically designate any land for compulsory acquisition. Thus, Section 55 was not applicable, and the acquisition proceedings could not be quashed on this basis.

5. Validity of Awards Made Without Proper Notice Under Sections 9 and 10:
The court held that non-service of notices under Sections 9 and 10 does not invalidate the acquisition proceedings. The purpose of these notices is to determine compensation, and any grievances regarding compensation can be addressed through the legal process.

6. Validity of Awards Made Without Funds for Compensation:
The petitioners argued that awards made without available funds for compensation were invalid. The court found no evidence that funds were unavailable at the time the awards were made. The administrative efforts to arrange funds did not imply a lack of funds.

7. Validity of Acquisition Proceedings for Land Previously Designated as Evacuee Property:
For land previously designated as evacuee property, the court held that if the land was not included in the original Section 4 notification, subsequent proceedings under Sections 6 and 11 were void. This applied to specific cases where the land was not covered by the notification due to its evacuee status at the time.

8. Validity of Acquisition Proceedings Where Public Purpose Has Allegedly Ceased to Exist:
The court rejected the argument that the public purpose for acquisition had ceased to exist, noting that planned development is an ongoing process. The mere fact that specific schemes or purposes had changed did not invalidate the broader public purpose of planned development.

9. Validity of Acquisition Proceedings Where Land is Shown as "Green" in the Master Plan:
The court held that land shown as "green" (for recreational purposes) in the Master Plan still falls under the ambit of planned development. Thus, acquisition for such purposes remains valid.

10. Validity of Acquisition Proceedings Where Construction Has Already Been Made on the Land:
The court found that constructions made after the issuance of Section 4 notifications do not invalidate acquisition proceedings. The petitioners could not claim regularization based solely on unauthorized constructions.

11. Validity of Acquisition Proceedings Where There Has Been an Alleged Assurance of Non-Acquisition:
The court dismissed claims of alleged assurances of non-acquisition unless there was a formal order under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Mere communications or statements by lower officials did not constitute legally binding assurances.

Conclusion:
The acquisition proceedings were largely upheld, with the court following the Supreme Court's precedent in awarding additional compensation for delays. Specific cases where the land was not covered by the original Section 4 notification due to evacuee status were quashed. The court emphasized the ongoing nature of planned development and the administrative necessity of handling multiple claims and interests.