1974 (8) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms Delhi land acquisition for development, dismissing challenges. Notification valid, no rights violation.

AFLATOON AND OTHERS Versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & OTHERS

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the land acquisition for the planned development of Delhi, dismissing the appeals and writ petitions challenging ... - Issues Involved:1. Public purpose of land acquisition.2. Delay in acquisition proceedings and compensation adequacy.3. Authority to issue notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.4. Acquisition for companies and compliance with Part VII of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Public Purpose of Land Acquisition:The appellants challenged the acquisition on the grounds that it was not for a public purpose but for companies, and hence, the provisions of Part VII of the Act should have been complied with. The Supreme Court noted that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act stated that the land was needed for the 'planned development of Delhi.' The Court held that specifying the public purpose in the notification is crucial to enable affected parties to file objections under Section 5A. However, the Court found that the appellants did not raise this issue timely, and thus, they were precluded from challenging the notification on this ground due to laches and delay. The Court emphasized that the planned development of Delhi was a public purpose, necessitated by the influx of displaced persons and the need for organized urban growth.2. Delay in Acquisition Proceedings and Compensation Adequacy:The appellants argued that the delay between the notification under Section 4 and the notices under Section 9 deprived them of the appreciation in the value of their property, violating their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f). The Court observed that the delay was partly due to the large number of objections and writ petitions filed, which the government had to address. The Court upheld the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, which stipulates that compensation should be determined with reference to the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4. The Court found no unreasonable restriction on the appellants' rights, as the Land Acquisition Act is a pre-Constitution Act protected by Article 31(5) of the Constitution.3. Authority to Issue Notification Under Section 4:The appellants contended that the notification under Section 4 should have been issued by the Central Government under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act, not by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. The Court held that the planned development of Delhi had been decided upon before the Delhi Development Act came into force. Therefore, there was no inhibition in acquiring land for planned development under the Land Acquisition Act before the Master Plan was ready. The Court also noted that the appellants were precluded by their laches and acquiescence from challenging the notification on this ground.4. Acquisition for Companies and Compliance with Part VII of the Act:The appellants argued that the acquisition was for cooperative housing societies, which are companies within the meaning of Section 3(e) of the Act, and thus, the provisions of Part VII should have been complied with. The Court found that the acquisition was not for companies, as the land was acquired for the public purpose of planned development. The subsequent allotment of land to cooperative housing societies did not change the nature of the acquisition. The Court upheld the findings of the High Court that the acquisition was not for companies and dismissed this contention.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, upholding the validity of the land acquisition for the planned development of Delhi. The Court found no merit in the appellants' contentions regarding the public purpose, delay in proceedings, authority to issue the notification, and acquisition for companies. The petitions were dismissed with costs.