http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: OM PRAKASH, ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF URBANDEVELO

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1987

BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR  350            1988 SCR  (1) 761  1988 SCC  (1) 356        JT 1987 (4)   330  1987 SCALE  (2)975

ACT:      Land Acquisition  Act, 1894-Whether the Lt. Governor of Delhi is  competent to issue notification under section 4(1) thereof for the acquisition of lands for planned development of Delhi-Effect  of the  enactment of  the Delhi Development Act 1957 on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioners  challenged before  the High  Court the validity of  a notification  issued by  the Lt.  Governor of Delhi for  the acquisition  of lands  in Delhi  for "planned development of  Delhi". The  High Court  decided against the petitioners. The  petitioners moved  this court  by  special leave. Notice  was issued by the Court to the respondents on a limited  point-whether the  Lt. Governor  is competent  to issue  a   notification  under  section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894 for  the acquisition of the lands for the "planned development of Delhi."      Dismissing the petitions for special leave, the Court,      HELD: Considering  the notifications  dated  19.8.1954, 1.11.56 and 7-9-66 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government  of  India  under  Article  239  (1)  of  the Constitution of India, the Lt. Governor of Delhi is entitled to exercise  the powers  of the  Central Government in Delhi under the  provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and he was competent to  issue the  notification impugned. The argument that after the enactment of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the provisions  of the  Land Acquisition  Act are  no longer relevant in  the present context and the Lt. Governor has no jurisdiction or  competence to  issue  the  notification  in question, is  not right.  It is no doubt true that the Delhi Development Act  makes a  separate mention  of  the  Central Government and  the Administrator of the Union Territory and demarcates some functions between the Central Government and the Administrator,  but there  can be  no doubt  that in the context of section 15 of the Delhi Development Act, it would not be  correct  to  understand  these  two  expressions  in different senses. The Delhi Development Act does not 762 destroy but  only  supplements  the  Land  Acquisition  Act. [763D-F; 767G]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

    Express Newspapers  Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 382, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 363 l of 1987.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  11.12.1986 of  the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 1943 of 1986.                                  AND      Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4321 of 1987.      From the Judgment and order dated 5.3.1987 of the Delhi High Court in R.A. No. 8 of 1987 in W.P. No. 2013 of 1986      B.R.L. Iyenger, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik and Naresh Kaushik for the Petitioner.      V.B. Saharya for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATHAN, J. In both these matters, notice was given to the  respondent on  a  limited  point:  whether  the  Lt. Governor of Delhi to competent is issue a notification under section 4(1)  of the  Land Acquisition  Act. 1894 (’the 1894 Act’), to  acquire hand  "for  the  planned  development  of Delhi". That  is  the  ground  on  which,  inter  alia,  the petitioners unsuccessfully  challenged before the High Court the validity of a notification dated 27.1.1984 issued by the Lt.  Governor   of  Delhi   (as  the   Head  of   the  Delhi Administration) for  the acquisition  of about 3550 hectares of land situated in Delhi. We have, therefore, heard counsel on this limited question.      Section  4(1)  of  the  1894  Act,  insofar  as  it  is relevant, reads as follows:           "4(1)Whenever  it   appears  to   the  appropriate                Government  that  land  in  any  locality  is                needed or  is likely  to be  needed  for  any                public purpose, a notification to that effect                shall be published in the official Gazette 763      Section 3(ee)  of the  same  Act  defines  "appropriate Government" A as follows:           "In this  Act, unless there is something repugnant           in the subject or context-           (ee) the   expression   "appropriate   Government"                means, in relation to acquisition of land for                the  purposes   of  the  Union,  the  Central                Government, and,  in relation  to acquisition                of land  for any  other purposes,  the  State                Government.      A reference  should also  be made,  in this context, to notifications issued under Article 23(1) of the Constitution of India  by the  Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of  India   on  19.8.1954,   1.11.1956  and   7.9.1966.  The cumulative effect  of these  notifications is  that the  Lt. Governor of  the Union  Territory of  Delhi is  entitled  to exercise the  powers and  discharge  the  functions  of  the Central Government  under the  provisions of  the  1894  Act within the  Union Territory  of Delhi.  There is  no  doubt, considering the  provisions of  the 1894  Act and  the above notifications, that  the Lt.  Governor of  Delhi  was  fully competent to issue the notification dated 27.1.1984.      The argument  addressed on  behalf of  the petitioners, however,  is   that,  after   the  enactment  of  the  Delhi Development Act, 1957 (the 1957 Act’), the provisions of the 1894 Act  are no  longer relevant in the present context. It is submitted  that the  expression "planned  development  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

Delhi" can  and does  envisage the development of Delhi only in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan and the Zonal Plans drawn up under the 1957 Act. Under the said Act, the  full   responsibility  of  drawing  up  plans  for  the development of  Delhi as  well  as  executing  the  same  in several phases  is vested in the Central Government. Sec. 15 of the  Act, makes  it clear  that this  takes in  also  the acquisition of Lands for such planned development. It reads:           "S. 15 Compulsory acquisition of land-                (1)  If  in   the  opinion   of  the  Central                     Government, any land is required for the                     purpose of development, or for any other                     purpose, under  this  Act,  the  Central                     Government may acquire such land 764                under the  provisions of the Land Acquisition                Act, 1894. (1 of 1894).                (2)  Where any  land has been acquired by the                     Central Government, that Government may,                     after it  has taken  possession  of  the                     land, transfer the land to the Authority                     or any  local authority  for the purpose                     for which  the land has been acquired on                     payment by  the Authority  or the  local                     authority of  the  compensation  awarded                     under  that   Act  and  of  the  charges                     incurred by the Government in connection                     with the acquisition."      It is argued that while the notifications under Article 239 of  the Constitution  may have  delegated the  power  of acquisition under  the second  part of  s. 15(1)  to the Lt. Governor,  they  do  not  affect  the  Central  Government’s jurisdiction under  the first  part to  take a decision that certain lands  are needed  for the  purposes of the Act. The argument  that   land  acquisition   in  Delhi  for  planned development is  the ’business’  of the Central Government is sought to  be reinforced  by reference  to the Allocation of Business Rules,  1961, made  by the  President under Article 77(3) of  the Constitution  of India.  These rules enumerate the following  items as  falling within  the purview  of the Ministry of Works & Housing in the Union Government:      16.  Schemes of  large scale  acquisition,  development      and disposal of land in Delhi.      17. Delhi Development Authority.      18.  Master Plan  of Delhi,  Co-ordination of  work  in      respect of  the Master  Plan and  slum clearance in the      Union Territory of Delhi.      19. Administration of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.      All this  shows, according to the learned counsel, that the Lt.  Governor has no jurisdiction or competence to issue the impugned notification.      There is  ex facie,  a  very  plausible  reply  to  the petitioner’s arguments based on s. 15 of the 1957 Act. It is this: that  the expression  "Central Government" in s. 15 of the 1957 Act has to be understood in 765 the light  of the  definition contained  in s.  3(8) of  the General Clauses  Act, 1897. That definition reads:                "3.  In this Act, and in all Central Acts and                     Regulations made  after the commencement                     of this  Act, unless  there is  anything                     repugnant in the subject or context,                             XX XX XX                (8) ’Central Government’ shall-                     (a) ...............

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

                   (b)  in relation  to anything done or to                          be done  after the  commencement of                          the    Constitution,    mean    the                          President; and shall include-                          (i)  in   relation   to   functions                               entrusted under  clause (1) of                               Article     258     of     the                               Constitution to the Government                               of   a    State,   the   State                               Government acting  within  the                               scope of  the authority  given                               to it under that clause;                          (iii)in     relation     to     the                               administration  of   a   Union                               Territory, the  administration                               thereof  acting   within   the                               scope of  the authority  given                               to him  under Article  239  of                               the Constitution."      It, therefore, follows, it can be said that, even under this provision, the jurisdiction to acquire lands rests only in the  Lt.  Governor  of  Delhi.  Anticipating  this  reply counsel for  petitioners urges  that the  definition in  the General Clauses  Act is  inapplicable in  the context of the Delhi Development  Act. It  is said that throughout this Act there  runs   a  clear   demarcation  between   the  Central Government on  the one  hand and  the Administrator  of  the Union Territory on the other. Reference is made to s. 30, 41 and 52  of the  1957 Act  and it  is urged,  in the light of these  provisions,   that  the   reference  to  the  Central Government in  s. 15 should be construed as a reference only to the Central Government and not to the Administrator (i.e. Lt. Governor) of the Union Territory. 766      A counter  affidavit had  been filed  on behalf  of the Delhi  Development   Authority  (DDA)   which  contained  an annexure which  would have  provided a  direct answer to the contentions urged  on behalf of the petitioners. This answer is a  notification dated  14.2.69,  issued  by  the  Central Government  under   s.  52(2)  of  the  1957  Act.  By  this notification, the Central Government directs that the powers of that  Government under  the provisions  of the  1957  Act mentioned in  the Schedule thereto annexed would, subject to the control  of the  Central Government  and  until  further orders, also  be exercised by the Administrator of the Union Territory of  Delhi. 11 items are mentioned in the Schedule. Of these,  the powers  in regard  to item  2 of the Schedule alone have  to be  exercised by  the Administrator  with the prior approval  of the Central Government. The others, which include powers  in regard  to s. 15(item 6) can be exercised by the  Administrator even without such prior approval. This notification places  it beyond  doubt that the powers of the Central Government  under section 15 can be exercised by the Lt. Governor  of Delhi.  Both the  power to  form an opinion under  the   first  part  of  s.  15(1)  and  the  power  of acquisition under  the second  part are comprehended by this notification.  This   notification,  therefore,  would  have furnished a  complete answer  to the  contentions  urged  on behalf of  the petitioners.  Unfortunately, it  appears, the notification was  only at  the draft  stage  and  was  never gazetted. We have, therefore, to leave this notification out of account.      But, even  otherwise, we  are of  the opinion  that Lt. Governor was  quite competent  to issue  the notification in question. It  is no  doubt true  that  the  1957  Act  makes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

separate  mention   of  the   Central  Government   and  the Administrator and  demarcates  some  functions  between  the Central Government  on the one hand and the State Government or the  Administrator on the other. But, whatever may be the position in  regard to  other provisions,  there can  be  no doubt that,  in the  con text of section 15, it would not be correct to  understand these  two expressions  in  different senses. We say this because on reading of s. 15(1) it is the obvious intention of the Legislature that the same authority should exercise  its functions  under both  the parts of the sub-section. If  the sub-section  is read  in the  manner in which the  petitioners seek  to read  it, the working of the section would become impracticable and cumbersome. According to them,  the Central  Government will first to have form an opinion that  certain lands are required for the purposes of planned development  of Delhi under the Act; thereafter this opinion has  to be  communicated to the Lt. Governor who, in view of  the delegation  of powers  under Article 239 of the Constitution which we have referred to earlier, will have to apply his 767 mind once  again to  the same question before he can issue a notification under  section 4  of the  1894 Act.  This is  a duplication of  functions which  could not  have been within the contemplation of the Legislature. The provision requires the satisfaction  of only one authority and since the powers of the  Central Government  under the  1894  Act  have  been delegated to  the  Lt.  Governor,  the  expression  ’Central Government’ will have to be understood in the same sense for the first part of the sub-section as well. The Allocation of Business Rules  relied on  by counsel,  have no relevance in this context.  They only provide that, when any of the items mentioned (such  as DDA,  master  plan,  the  1957  Act,  or acquisition etc.  Of properties  in Delhi)  comes up for the consideration of  the Central Government, it will have to be dealt within the Ministry of Works & Housing. They are quite consistent with  the position that even the powers delegated to the  Lt. Governor  are exercisable by him only subject to the control and further orders of the President. They cannot be understood  as  negativing  the  competence  of  the  Lt. Governor to deal with the subject-matter in question.      Even assuming  that the  petitioners are right in their interpretation of  s.  15(1),  the  competence  of  the  Lt. Governor to issue the impugned notification can be upheld on another ground.  The provisions  of  the  1894  Act  clearly empower the  Lt. Governor  to  acquire  the  lands  for  the planned development  of Delhi, which, it is now settled law, is clearly  a public  purpose.  That  competence  cannot  be denied without  some express provision in some statute. Both the 1894  Act and  1957 Act are Central enactments. Granting that the  1957 Act desired to empower the Central Government to acquire  lands in  Delhi for the purposes of the said Act and even  granting that  such  power  has  to  be  exercised through the  Lt. Governor  because of the notification under Article 239(1),  such power can also stand size by side with the wider  power of  the Lt. Governor to acquire lands for a public purpose.  There is  nothing in  the  1957  Act  which prohibits the  Lt. Governor taking such steps as he desires, under the  powers available to him, to carry out the planned development of  Delhi in  consonance with the plans approved or finalised  under the  1957 Act. Viewed in this light, the powers of  the Lt.  Governor under  section 4  of  the  Land Acquisition Act  can be  read as additional to the powers of the Central  Government under the Delhi Development Act. The 1957 Act does not destroy but only supplements the 1894 Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

This is  the view  taken by the High Court and we agree with it.      Both counsel  referred to  certain decisions. We do not think it  is necessary  to refer to them in detail except to say that the decision in H 768 the Express  Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985]  Supplement 3  SCR  382  relied  upon  for  the petitioner is  clearly distinguishable  and it  related to a case regarding  the powers  of the  Delhi Administration  in regard to lands belonging to the Union.      For  the   reasons  discussed   above,  we  reject  the contention urged  on behalf  of the petitioners. The Special Leave Petitions fail and are dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. S.L.                                    Petitions dismissed. 769