SITA RAM BHANDAR SOCIETY Vs. LT GOVERNOR GOVT OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 2nd September 1998 dismissing the writ petitions. The facts are as under:

(2.) ON 13th November 1959, a Notification was issued by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the "Act") notifying the Government's intention to acquire 34070 acres of land for the "Planned Development of Delhi". This notification had, within its ambit, agricultural land belonging to the appellant society, bearing Khasra No. 157 in Village Lado Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi measuring 8 Bighas and 11 Biswas or 8620 sq. yards equivalent to 1.8 acres. The appellant filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on the 10th December 1959 submitting that the land be exempted from the proposed acquisition. It pointed out that the appellant body was a registered trust and a religious body managing three temples in Pilani, Rajasthan and several gardens, water tanks etc. having religious significance. The objections raised were apparently found without merit whereafter the Chief Commissioner issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act which was published on 16th May 1966 pertaining to 2153 Bighas 2 Biswas corresponding to about 448 acres. The Collector, Land Acquisition also rendered his award on 19th June 1980 clarifying that it pertained only to 1996 Bighas 18 Biswas leaving out an area of 156 Bighas 4 Biswas for the time being as it was built up and that the award for this area would be given later. The appellant's property Khasra No.157 was, however, included in the award of 19th June, 1980. It appears that pursuant to the award possession of 1933 Bighas and 2 Biswas was taken by the Collector, Land Acquisition on the 20th June 1980 and further handed over to the beneficiary department. It was, however, observed in the proceedings of 20th June 1980 that the possession of the balance area of about 61 Bighas would be taken after the removal of the structures with the help of the demolition squad. ON the 29 th July 1980 a Notification under Section 22 (1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 was issued by the Central Government, placing the acquired land at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority for the planned development of Delhi. At this stage, the appellant filed CWP No.1068 of 1980 in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. This petition was dismissed in limine on the 18 th August 1980. The appellant thereupon preferred Special Leave Petition in this Court and after leave was granted the appeal was registered as C.A. No. 1738 of 1981. While the appeal was still pending, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2220/1981 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court. It appears that an interim order was made by the Supreme Court in these proceedings on 15th of July 1981 staying dispossession of the appellant from the property in dispute and the said order was confirmed on 16th September 1982. Both the Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition aforementioned were, however, dismissed by this Court on the 20th July 1993. It also appears from the record that while the aforementioned two matters were pending in this Court, the appellant filed Suit No. 1226 of 1992 on the Original Side of the Delhi High Court praying for an injunction against the respondents, including the Delhi Development Authority, that no structure be demolished and that no interference be made with the plaintiff's possession and management of the Suit land. An interim injunction was also sought and obtained in these proceedings. It is the appellant's case that though the aforesaid Suit was transferred to the District Court in Delhi on account of the revision of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the said interim injunction still continued to operate, but despite the interim orders the Delhi Development Authority continued to impinge on the appellant's property on which a Contempt Petition was filed in the High Court, which in its order dated 19th May 1992, directed the respondent authorities to ensure compliance with the High Court's order dated 2nd April 1992 made in the civil suit. It is further the case of the appellant that some time later the Delhi Development Authority again tried to interfere with the appellant's property on which yet another Contempt Petition No.36 of 1993 was filed and the same is said to be pending. The appellant, however, continued to be persist in its efforts to save the acquired land and at this stage filed C.W.P.No.700 of 1994 in the Delhi High Court on 28th January 1994 challenging, inter-alia, the constitutional validity of Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, whereunder the acquired land had been handed over to the DDA, and also praying for the allotment of an alternative site in lieu of the acquired land. This writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on September 8, 1995 the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner (the present appellant) in the following terms:

(3.) IN this background, Mr. Gupta, has raised three arguments before us during the course of hearing. He has first pointed out that it was the positive case of the appellant that the land in dispute was encircled by a boundary wall and as such possession thereof could be taken only after entering the land and not by any symbolic or paper possession. As a corollary, it has been submitted, that there was no material on record to show that the actual physical possession had been taken as would preclude the withdrawal of the acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. IN this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D. Bhagat and Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 700 and Om Prakash and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 1 which had been subsequently followed in P.K.Kalburqi vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 489. It has finally been submitted that there was ample evidence on record to show that the property in dispute was, in fact, surrounded by a wall and had some other structures as well, and in view of the positive stand taken by the Land Acquisition Collector in his award dated 19th June 1980 that the possession of the area covered by structures would be the subject matter of a supplementary award, the very basis of the judgment of the High Court that the possession had been taken on the 20th June 1980 was erroneous.