- (1.) THESE appeals filed against order dated 21. 8. 2001 of the division Bench of Delhi High Court whereby it refused to interfere with the Central Government's decision not to exercise discretion under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') to withdraw from the acquisition of land comprised in khasra Nos. 35, 369/36, 37, 38, 367/21 and 365/33 of Village masudpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi are illustrative of how the litigants use the courts process for frustrating the acquisition of land for a public purpose for years together and seek equity after raising illegal construction over the acquired land under the cloak of interim order (s) passed by one or the other court. Background Facts:
(2.) IN the aftermath of partition of the country, lakhs of people were forced to leave their habitat, properties, trade, business, etc. in the territory which became Pakistan. Most of them came and settled in northern parts of the country, particularly punjab and Delhi. Out of sheer compulsion, they constructed houses, etc. without proper layouts and planning. Initially, the Government did not pay much attention to the haphazard construction of houses and the growth of unplanned colonies, but with rapid increase in population of the city on account of influx of thousands of people from other parts of the country, it was realized that planned development of the capital city is sine qua non for its healthy growth. Keeping this in mind, the Central Government created Delhi development Authority (DDA) and also set up Town Planning organization, which was entrusted with the task of giving advice on all matters pertaining to planning in the territory of Delhi. The master plan of Delhi was notified in 1962. It envisaged development of Delhi in different segments, i. e. , residential, commercial, institutional, industrial etc. in a scientific and modern way. For implementing the concept of planned development in accordance with the notified master plan, large tracts of land were acquired vide notifications dated 13. 11. 1959, 24. 10. 1961, 4. 4. 1964, 16. 4. 1964 and 23. 1. 1965 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Writ petitions filed by those affected by the first notification were dismissed by the High Court and their appeals were dismissed by this court in the case titled Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1975) 4 scc 285, with a categorical finding that the planned development of delhi is a public purpose for which large tracts of land could be acquired. The acquisitions made in furtherance of other notifications were also challenged by the land holders and other affected persons. C. W. P. No. 963/1980 filed by one Ved Prakash was dismissed by the high Court. However, the special leave petition was entertained by this Court and leave was granted.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the civil appeal arising out of the special leave petition filed by Ved Prakash and some writ petitions which were directly entertained by this Court, a Division Bench of the High Court made a reference to the Full Bench for considering the questions 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. The Full Bench dismissed all the writ petitions and related miscellaneous applications vide judgment titled Roshanara Begum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 Delhi 206. Appeals filed against the judgment of Full Bench were dismissed by this Court - Murari v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 15. The land which is subject matter of these appeals was acquired vide notification dated 23. 1. 1965. Declaration under section 6 was published on 23. 12. 1968, notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued in 1976 and the award was made on 22. 12. 1980.;