JAGJIWAN COOP. HOUSE BLDG. SOC. LTD&ANR Vs LT. GOVERNOR, N.C.T. OF DELHI .
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
Case number: C.A. No.-003278-003278 / 2012
Diary number: 2919 / 2006
Advocates: SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA Vs SAHARYA & CO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3278 OF 2012
JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS
C.A. NO. 3279 OF 2012
C.A. NO. 3280 OF 2012
J U D G M E N T
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and
order dated 3.2.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
Delhi. The case pertains to land acquisition proceedings initiated by
way of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (the Act). It was proposed to acquire the land for Vasant
Kunj residential scheme. Enquiry under section 5A was dispensed
with as section 17(1) was invoked. The society filed a representation
for withdrawal of the notification and thereafter filed a writ petition on
6.12.1999. The society claimed the ownership of the land admeasuring
42 bighas 16 biswas situated in village Mehrauli, New Delhi. The
Government of India has policy to ensure shelter to the citizens and
cooperative sector is to be given preference for allotting housing sites
to encourage housing. The appellantsociety was not under liquidation
at the time of issuance of the notification. On 29.9.2000 the
declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued. The High Court
allowed the writ petition in part, maintaining the notification dated
11.11.1999 under section 4 of the Act and quashed the same with
respect to invoking the provision of section 17(4) of the Act.
2. The appeals were earlier heard by a Division Bench of this Court
and decided vide order dated 26.2.2015. At the time of hearing of the
appeal, it was submitted that in view of the provisions contained in
section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013
Act). The acquisition has lapsed. This Court disposed of the appeals
and permitted the landholders to initiate appropriate proceedings
before the proper forum/court claiming the benefit of section 4 of the
2013 Act, and in case orders under section 24 of the 2013 Act are
adverse to their interest, they may apply for reviving the appeal within
90 days of the passing of the order.
3. It is submitted in the Miscellaneous Applications which have
been filed for revival of the appeals that the writ petition was filed in
the High Court of Delhi. The writ petitions were allowed by the High
Court. However, the D.D.A. has challenged the judgment and order
passed by the High Court in the civil appeals. Appels have been
allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2018 hence the
applications have been filed for revival of the appeals.
4. We have revived the appeals and heard them on merits. Shri
Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, urged that the need of the Cooperative Housing Society is
for housing and the Government may be directed to release the land to
the appellants. He has further submitted that the area is no more
required and as per the policy of the Government, land should be de
notified. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed
out that the prayer for denotifying the land has already been rejected
and there is no question of denotification of the acquired land.
Correct facts have not been placed before this Court.
5. We find that no case for interference is made out in the appeals
filed at the instance of the appellants. There is no rhyme or reason to
direct denotification of the land and a prayer in that regard has
already been rejected by the appropriate Government. Merely by the
fact that one of the appellants is Cooperative Society, the complexion
of the case does not change and this fact was duly taken note of at the
time of land acquisition under the Act. Thus, no advantage can be
derived from the policy of the State Government, the land acquisition
could not be said to be illegal in any manner. There is no room for
making indulgence to quash the land acquisition proceedings.
Resultantly, the appeals being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.
…………………………J. (Arun Mishra)
New Delhi; ……..………………….J. October 24, 2019. (S. Ravindra Bhat)