http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17  

                                                REPORTABLE

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6811                OF 2010           (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 24532 of 2009)

Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr.                 .... Appellant (s)

          Versus

Union of India & Ors.                        .... Respondent(s)

                       JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)   Leave granted.

2)   This appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi

at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 9647 of 2009 whereby the

High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants

herein.

                                                                 1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17  

3)   Brief facts:

    A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

was issued on 24.10.1961 to acquire vast chunk of

agricultural land for the planned development of Delhi

including the lands of the appellants herein situated in

Village Mehrauli. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act

in respect of the said land was issued on 04.01.1969.

Notices were issued by the Collector under Section 9 of the

Act on 26.04.1983, after a lapse of almost 22 years from

the date of Notification published under Section 4 (1) of

the Act.   Thereafter, objections and claims were filed by

the appellants on 23.05.1983. Challenging the validity of

the acquisition proceedings, the appellants filed W.P. (C)

No. 1129 of 1983 and other members of the family also

filed W.P.(C) No. 1131 of 1983 before the High Court. The

High Court, vide its order dated 25.05.1983, issued notice

and directed to maintain status quo as on that date.

                                                         2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17  

However on 15.04.2004, the High Court dismissed the

writ petitions. Against the dismissal of the writ petition,

the appellants filed Review Petition No. 253 of 2004 which

was also dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the

said order, on 19.11.2004, the appellants filed S.L.P.

before this Court.    On 24.01.2005, this Court, while

issuing notice, granted status quo in respect of possession

of the land in question. Thereafter, the abovesaid S.L.P.

were numbered as Civil Appeal Nos. 2418-2419 of 2008.

On 07.10.2008, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited

(hereinafter referred to as "DMRC") filed applications in

C.A. Nos. 2418-2419 of 2008 for impleadment and

vacation/modification of order of status quo on the

ground that land admeasuring 26,187 sq. mtr. was

required   urgently for the construction of Chattarpur

Metro Station on Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi

MRTS. On 17.11.2008, this Court allowed the application

for impleadment and clarified that the order of status quo

                                                        3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17  

passed by it will not come in the way of DMRC proceeding

with fresh acquisition in accordance with law. Thereafter,

on 19.01.2009, the Land Acquisition Collector along with

Delhi Administration preferred I.A. No. 5 of 2009 and on

29.1.2009, DMRC also filed I.A.No.6 of 2009 in C.A. Nos.

2418-2419 of 2008 for modification of this Court’s order

dated 17.11.2008. This Court, on 23.02.2009, disposed of

the said applications for modification reiterating its earlier

order dated 17.11.2008. On 06.06.2009, the Government

of NCT of Delhi and Land & Building Department, Govt. of

Delhi published a notification dated 02.06.2009 under

Section 48 of the Act withdrawing its earlier notification

for acquisition of land in question and a fresh notification

dated 04.06.2009 was published on 07.06.2009 exercising

powers under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)(4) of the

Act seeking to acquire land of the appellants. Challenging

the said notification, the appellants filed W.P. (C) No. 9647

of 2009 before the High Court.      The High Court by the

                                                           4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17  

impugned order dated 08.09.2009 dismissed the petition.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred

this appeal by way of special leave petition before this

Court.

4)    Heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for

the   appellants/land   owners,    Mr.   Parag   P.   Tripathi,

Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr.

Nikhil Goel for DDA.

5)    Main Contentions:

i)    When the acquisition of the land is for DMRC and

when there is a specific Act, namely, the Metro Railways

(Construction of Works) Act, 1978 whether the authorities

are justified in invoking the urgency provision in the Land

Acquisition Act by dispensing enquiry under Section 5A of

the said Act.

ii)   When Government land adjoining to the land in

question is available, whether acquisition of a private land

belonging to the appellants is justifiable.

                                                            5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17  

6)   It is true that initially a vast extent of agricultural

lands in Delhi were sought to be acquired under the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) for the

planned development of Delhi. The said acquisition was

challenged before the High Court of Delhi and after their

dismissal, the appellants and others preferred Civil Appeal

Nos. 2418-2419 of 2008 before this Court and vide order

dated 24.01.2005, this Court directed maintenance of

status quo in respect of possession of land in question.

Subsequently, at the instance of the DMRC, the limited

status quo order was clarified to the effect that DMRC is

free to proceed with the fresh acquisition in accordance

with law. Pursuant to the same, fresh notification dated

04.06.2009 was published on 07.06.2009 exercising

powers under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)(4) of the

Act seeking to acquire the land of the appellants. The said

action   and    the     entire    acquisition   proceeding      was

challenged     before   the      High   Court   which   ended    in

                                                                6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17  

dismissal.   As raised before the High Court, it was

contended before us that in view of the Metro Railways

(Construction of Works) Act, 1978, the respondents are

not permitted to invoke urgency provision under the Land

Acquisition Act which deprived the appellants from

participating in the enquiry under Section 5A. The Metro

Railways Act (No. 33 of 1978) was enacted by the

Parliament to provide for the construction of works

relating to metro railways in the metropolitan cities.

Chapter III of the said Act deals with ‘Acquisition’. It is

not in dispute that similar provisions as that of Sections

4, 5A, 6, 9 and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act have been

incorporated in the Metro Railways Act. Section 17 makes

it clear that when acquisition of land is initiated under

Metro Railways Act, the provisions of Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 shall not apply. Section 45 also makes it clear

that any proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition

Act for the purpose of any metro railway project pending

                                                        7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17  

immediately before the commencement of Metro Railways

Act is to be continued and be disposed of under that Act

(Land Acquisition Act). The above provisions make it clear

that if any land is required/needed for the construction

works relating to metro railways in the metropolitan cities,

the authorities are free to apply the Metro Railways Act

and acquire any land. But at the same time, there is no

specific prohibition in the Metro Railways Act from

applying the Land Acquisition Act to acquire any land for

a public purpose, more particularly, for the construction

works relating to metro railways in the metropolitan cities.

7)   The respondents have clarified that in view of the

status quo order passed by this Court in respect of the

first acquisition proceedings and the project has to be

executed urgently in view of ensuing Common Wealth

Games, they sought for clarification from this Court and

this Court clarified that the respondents are free to initiate

fresh proceeding in order to execute the project. In such

                                                           8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17  

circumstance,   the   Government    cancelled   the   earlier

notification and issued a fresh notification under the Land

Acquisition Act. Since Section 17 of the Act enables the

authorities to dispense with enquiry under Section 5A and

to complete the acquisition proceedings without any delay,

urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition

Act was invoked. There is no serious challenge as to the

invocation of urgency clause under the Land Acquisition

Act. It is also not in dispute that there is no provison for

acquisition of land on urgent basis in the Metro Railways

Act, 1978.

8) Similar question was considered by this Court in S.S.

Darshan vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1996) 7

SCC 302.     Against dismissal of two writ petitions by a

common order dated 14.07.1995, passed by a Division

Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, the landowners

have filed appeal before this Court. The challenge made in

the writ petitions before the High Court was to the validity

                                                          9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17  

of the notification dated 16.07.1994, issued under Section

4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 and the notification dated 22.08.1994 issued under

Section 6 thereof by the State of Karnataka for acquisition

of 11 acres 36 gunthas of land in Pattandur Agrahara

Village, Whitefield, Bangalore Taluk, Bangalore, belonging

to the appellants therein. It was contended that these

notifications were invalid apart from the fact that the user

of the acquired land by them is beneficial to the society.

Several other contentions on which the validity of

acquisition was challenged have been rejected by the High

Court.   It is also seen from the above case that a large

tract of land contiguous to the area acquired by the

impugned notifications had already been acquired by the

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board under the

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 which

also provides for acquisition of land for the Board.    The

said area was found to be inadequate for the project on

                                                         10

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17  

account of which the contiguous disputed area had been

acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.             It was

contended that the acquisition of the present area should

also be made only under the Karnataka Act of 1966

instead of the Land Acquisition Act since the Karnataka

Act gives greater opportunity to the owners of the land to

resist the acquisition.    It was also contended that the

acquisition under the Central Act, which is a more

stringent provision, is violative of Article 14 since it

deprives the appellants of the right of the more liberal

provisions of the Karnataka Act, 1966.               This Court

rejected all the above contentions and held:

   "10.   ... .... In our opinion, there is no merit in this     contention as well. In view of the urgent need for the     acquisition of this land, which cannot be met under the     Karnataka Act, resort to the provisions of the Central     Act which are applicable cannot be faulted...."

It is clear that in spite of the provisions of Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, this Court

upheld the action of the Karnataka Government in

invoking Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) for acquiring

                                                               11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17  

lands for a public purpose of setting up the Information

Technology Park and to meet the need of additional land

contiguous to the area acquired earlier. This decision is

squarely applicable to the case on hand.       Even though

special enactment, namely, Metro Railways Act, 1978 is

available, in view of urgency and in the absence of similar

urgency clause in the Metro Railways Act as that of Land

Acquisition Act, the Lt. Governor, Delhi issued a fresh

notification for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act.

Accordingly, we reject the first contention.

9)   With the assistance of maps that were produced

before the High Court, Mr. Patwalia, learned senior

counsel for the appellants submitted that when the lands

adjoining to the railway track belongs to DDA, the

Authorities are not justified in acquiring the private land

of the appellants. Before considering this issue, it is our

duty to point out that nowhere in the affidavit the

appellants have specified the details regarding their

                                                         12

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17  

holdings such as khasra No., extent, ownership details

with reference to revenue records. The appellants have not

disclosed anywhere in the petition as to how they are

concerned with the suit land. Very vague pleadings have

been made that the suit land belonged to their family. As

per the revenue record, total area of land owned by their

so called family is 12-1-0 bighas only while land in respect

of which the acquisition is under challenge is 28-1-0

bighas. Land acquisition proceedings can be challenged

only by the "person-interested" and none else.       On this

ground also, their claim is liable to be rejected.

10) Coming to the land owned by DDA, report filed by the

Department clearly shows the Conservator of Forests who

inspected the adjoining land of DDA along with the

Director (LMI) of DDA and other officials in the presence of

appellants, that the land in question is comprised in

Reserved Park as per MPD 2021 and has also been

notified as Reserved Forests vide Notification No. F.10(42)-

                                                         13

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17  

I/PA/DCF/93/2012-17(1) dated 24.05.1994. Further, the

Conservator of Forests has specifically stated that the said

DDA land is a forest land. In addition to the same, DDA

has filed an affidavit which reiterated the above report and

also asserted that on inspection it was verified that the

land of DDA falls in reserved park and reserved forests,

South Central Ridge.    The High Court also perused the

said notification dated 24.05.1994 and found that the Lt.

Governor of Delhi declared those lands mentioned in

Schedule A of the notification as Reserved Forests.     The

notification also shows that the area in South Central

Ridge comprises approximately 626 hectares of forest land

and waste lands which have been duly declared as

reserved forests.   Though relying on reply sent to the

appellants on their application under RTI Act that these

lands cannot be treated as reserved forests and the

counsel wanted to rely upon certain communications from

the Department, in view of proper notification declaring

                                                         14

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17  

the area in question as reserved forests, we are not

inclined to entertain such argument at this stage.       As

rightly observed by the High Court, the joint survey

carried out by the Conservator of Forests and DDA, in the

presence of the appellants, is a sufficient proof that the

land in question belongs to DDA being the land notified

under the notification dated 24.05.1994. In a matter of

this nature, Courts have to accept the notification duly

issued by the authority concerned as sufficient proof. In

view of the same, though Mr. Patwalia has heavily relied

on certain communications about the nature of land in

question and in view of authoritative notification by the

department concerned, we are of the opinion that it would

not be possible to rely on those details at this stage.

Accordingly, we reject the second contention also.

11) Though    a   feeble   request   was   made   that   the

appellants were ready to forego as much land as was

required for Metro tracts and Chhattarpur Metro Station

                                                         15

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17  

provided the electric sub-station is shifted to some other

land and that part of the appellants land which was

sought to be used for electric sub-station is allowed to be

retained by them, in view of the factual findings about the

nature and character of the land owned by the DDA being

a forest land as per the notification, we have no other

option except to reject the same.

12) In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied

that the existence of public purpose and urgency in

executing the project before the Common Wealth Games,

the adjoining land belonging to DDA being forest land as

per the notification and also of the fact that the

respondents have fully complied with the mandatory

requirements including deposit of 80 per cent of the

compensation amount, we are in entire agreement with

the stand taken by the respondents as well as the

conclusion of the High Court.

                                                        16

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17  

13)   Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is

dismissed with no order as to costs.

                              ..........................................J.                                (P. SATHASIVAM)

                             ..........................................J.                                (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) NEW DELHI; AUGUST 20, 2010.

                                                                         17