Supreme Court of India
JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. versus LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS. on 24 October 2019
1046
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
AJAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
v.
LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3278 of 2012)
BOCTOBER 24, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 5A, 17(1), (4) – Acquisitionproceedings initiated by issuance of notification u/s.4 of the 1894CAct – Land proposed to be acquired for Vasant Kunj residentialscheme– Appellant-Society claimed the ownership of the land –Appellant filed writ petition – High Court allowed the writ petitionin part, maintaining the notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act, butquashed the same with respect to invoking the provision of s.17(4)of the said Act – On merits, held: No case for interference is madeDout – There is no rhyme or reason to direct de-notification of theland – Prayer in that regard has already been rejected by theappropriate Government – Merely by the fact that one of theappellants is Cooperative Society, the complexion of the case doesnot change and this fact was duly taken note of at the time of landEacquisition – Land acquisition could not be said to be illegal in anymanner – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.4 and24(2).
Dismissing the appeals, the CourtF
HELD: 1.1 No case for interference is made out in theappeals filed at the instance of the appellants. There is no rhymeor reason to direct de-notification of the land and a prayer in thatregard has already been rejected by the appropriate Government.Merely by the fact that one of the appellants is CooperativeGSociety, the complexion of the case does not change and this factwas duly taken note of at the time of land acquisition under theAct. Thus, no advantage can be derived from the policy of theState Government, the land acquisition could not be said to beillegal in any manner. There is no room for making indulgence toquash the land acquisition proceedings. [Para 5] [1048-F-G]H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3278of 2012
From the Judgment and Order 03.02.2005 of the High Court ofDelhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7332 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3279 and 3280 of 2012.
Maninder Singh, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advs., Sibo SankarMishra, Niranjan Sahu, Ashok Kumar Singh, V. Balaji, T. A. Khan,Praveen Gaur, Ms. Priyanshi Agarwal, Aadhya Mishra, B. V. BalramDas, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Vasundra, Advs. for the appearingparties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The appeals have been filed against the impugned judgmentand order dated 3.2.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Courtof Delhi. The case pertains to land acquisition proceedings initiated byway of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (the Act). It was proposed to acquire the land for Vasant Kunjresidential scheme. Enquiry under section 5A was dispensed with assection 17(1) was invoked. The society filed a representation forwithdrawal of the notification and thereafter filed a writ petition on6.12.1999. The society claimed the ownership of the land admeasuring42 bighas 16 biswas situated in village Mehrauli, New Delhi. TheGovernment of India has policy to ensure shelter to the citizens andcooperative sector is to be given preference for allotting housing sites toencourage housing. The appellant-society was not under liquidation atthe time of issuance of the notification. On 29.9.2000 the declarationunder section 6 of the Act was issued. The High Court allowed the writpetition in part, maintaining the notification dated 11.11.1999 under section4 of the Act and quashed the same with respect to invoking the provisionof section 17(4) of the Act.
2. The appeals were earlier heard by a Division Bench of thisCourt and decided vide order dated 26.2.2015. At the time of hearing ofthe appeal, it was submitted that in view of the provisions contained insection 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
ALand Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013Act). The acquisition has lapsed. This Court disposed of the appeals andpermitted the landholders to initiate appropriate proceedings before theproper forum/court claiming the benefit of section 4 of the 2013 Act, andin case orders under section 24 of the 2013 Act are adverse to theirinterest, they may apply for reviving the appeal within 90 days of theBpassing of the order.
3. It is submitted in the Miscellaneous Applications which havebeen filed for revival of the appeals that the writ petition was filed in theHigh Court of Delhi. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court.However, the D.D.A. has challenged the judgment and order passed byCthe High Court in the civil appeals. Appels have been allowed videjudgment and order dated 16.2.2018 hence the applications have beenfiled for revival of the appeals.
4. We have revived the appeals and heard them on merits. ShriManinder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of theDappellants, urged that the need of the Cooperative Housing Society isfor housing and the Government may be directed to release the land tothe appellants. He has further submitted that the area is no more requiredand as per the policy of the Government, land should be de-notified.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that theEprayer for de-notifying the land has already been rejected and there isno question of de-notification of the acquired land. Correct facts havenot been placed before this Court.
5. We find that no case for interference is made out in the appealsfiled at the instance of the appellants. There is no rhyme or reason toFdirect de-notification of the land and a prayer in that regard has alreadybeen rejected by the appropriate Government. Merely by the fact thatone of the appellants is Cooperative Society, the complexion of the casedoes not change and this fact was duly taken note of at the time of landacquisition under the Act. Thus, no advantage can be derived from thepolicy of the State Government, the land acquisition could not be said toGbe illegal in any manner. There is no room for making indulgence toquash the land acquisition proceedings. Resultantly, the appeals beingdevoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.