9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e main Ansari Road at the intersection of Ansari Road with Masjid Ghat abutting the said two main roads Apart from the main buildings on the property, known as Gopal Krishna Bhavan and Radha Krishna Bhavan, there are several godowns, garages, out-houses and allied structures for the proper utilisation of the building. The property is in the main commercial centre of Delhi and was all along being used for commercial purpose, first by the Bharat Bank and then by the American Embassy for running the United States Information Service (USIS). (3) On 27.9.1950 four flats out of the said building were acquisitioned by the Delhi Administration under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. On 13.3 1959 the remaining buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Award was rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector, fixing ₹ 77,11,230,60 as compensation. The petitioners were ready to accept the compensation without prejudice to their claim for the release of the property and the writ petition, but the Delhi Administration did not make the payment. It also did not offer the payment of 80 per cent of the proposed compensation under Sub-section 3A of Section 17. On 16-8.1990 the petitioners moved CM. 3916/90, claiming further directions for the payment of the said amount of compensation without prejudice to the petitioners claim and also prayed that they be paid damages for the illegal possession of the land by the Delhi Administration after the lapse of Registration and Acquisition Act on 10.3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h considerable care and responsibility. The urgency should be such as could not have been foreseen in spite of due care and attention. It was also held that application of urgency clause cannot be a substitute for the laxity on the part of the State Administration in expeditiously initiating acquisition proceedings. Nor can it be invoked to make up for the delay caused only because of the lethargy on the part of the admmistration. (7) In Dora Phalauli v. State of Punjab the Supreme Court has held that the Appropriate Authority must satisfy itself about the urgency of taking immediate possession and also of taking away the right of the owner of the land for filing objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act The Supreme Court, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act was to lapse on 10.3.1987. Thus. they had sufficient time to make alternate arrangement for the residence of their officers and there was no urgency whatsoever for invoking the provisions of Section 17(1). The provisions of Section 17(1) cannot be utilised to cover up the laxity or lethargy of the Administration to take appropriate steps in time for making available alternate accommodation for its officers. (9) The Notification under Section 17(1) is also bad in law for non- compliance of the requirement of Sub-section 3-A of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said Sub-Section mandates the Collector to tender pay- ment of 80 per cent of the compensation for the land, as es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne more reason why the action of the Delhi Administration is in the powers In this case the" Administration has acted contrary to it? well-established and published policy of non-acquisition of built up areas. We are every day dealing with the notifications of the Delhi Administration wherein the government lands, lands of religious nature and lands covered by built up areas are exempted from acquisition. It is our experience that even the lands having built up structures are initially mentioned in the Notification under Section 4, they are dropped from acquisition at the stage of the Award or released from acquisition by a separate order under Section 48 of the Act No justification has been shown by the administration as to why the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rket value of the property, as of today, is around ₹ 20 crores. It is also submitted that the rent charged for the enjoyment of a similar property in this commercial area is not less than ₹ 15 persq.ft. The petitioners are entitled to damages from 10.3.1987 till the payment. (12) In Assam Sillimanita Limited v. Union of India the Supreme Court had appointed an Arbtrator turn determining the damages' in case of unlawful termination of a lease. Considering the fact that more than three years have elapsed since the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act has lapsed, it would be more just and appropriate that an Arbitrator is appointed in the present case to determine the damages payable by Delhi Administration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
