http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SMT.  RATNI DEVI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHIEF COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/04/1975

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.

CITATION:  1975 AIR 1699            1975 SCR  361  1975 SCC  (4) 467  CITATOR INFO :  R          1978 SC 515  (3)

ACT: Land  Acquisition Act--Section 4,  validity  of-Compensation related to s.  4 notificafion--Vagueness  of public purpose.

HEADNOTE: The  Government  set up Town Planning Organisation  in  1955 which  prepared an interim general Plan for Delhi  in  1956. The  influx  of  displaced persons after  partition  of  the country,  the growth of slum, the problems of  overcrowding, insanitation, traffic hazards, sub-standard construction and lack  of proper civic amenities led the Government  to  take effective measures to ensure orderly and planned development of  the  city.   The Planning is to  provide  for  different classes  of people who have to live and work in the city  of Delhi.   The plan has to provide for bona fide  requirements of  the  public for residential, industrial  and  commercial purposes   and  to  ensure  healthy  and  properly   planned development  of  Delhi.  The Government decided  to  acquire 34070  acres of land in and around the city.  The  land  was acquired  after  issuing notification under  section  4  and section 6. The petitioners in the present petition contended, (1)  Compensation  which is related to date of  notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is bad. (2)  The   planned  development  of  Delhi  is  vague   and, therefore, the acquisition is bad. Dismissing the petition, HELD   :  (i)  The  question  about  the  payment   of   the compensation  as on the date of the section  4  notification has  been  held  to be valid by this Court in  the  case  of Aflatoon.   Them is a provision for payment of  interest  at the rate of 6 per cent of the market value after the  expiry of  3 years from the date of notification under s. 4 to  the date  of  payment  of compensation.  Again,  any  outlay  or improvement made after the date of & 4 notification with the sanction of the Collector has to be taken into consideration in awarding compensation. 1363 C-E] (ii) This  Court has also held that the planned  development

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

of  Delhi  is a public purpose in Aflatoon’s case.   It  was held  in that case that in the case of an acquisition  of  a large  area  of land comprising several plots  belonging  to different persons the specification of the purpose can  only be  with  reference to acquisition of the whole  area.   The notification  which was for the acquisition of  over  30,000 acres of land in the very nature of things could not specify each   particular  purpose  and,  therefore,   the   planned development of Delhi was of sufficient particularly. [363 G- H]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 332 and 333  of 1971. From  the  judgment and order dated 13-8-1970  of  the  High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. Nos. 125 and 126 of 1970. D.   P. Singh, (In W.P. No. 333/71) and C.A. No. 609172), R.   K. Garg, S. C.  Agarwala and V. J.  Francis, for appellants  in appeals. 362 S.   N. Prasad and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos.  1-3 in W.Ps. and respondents in appeals. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY,  C.J.-There are two principal questions in  these  writ petitions  and civil appeals.  First, is compensation  which is  related to the date of notification under section  4  of the  Land  Acquisition  Act referred to as  the  Act  bad  ? Second, is planned development of Delhi bad and vague ? This  Court in Afloatoon & Ors. v. Lt.  Governor of Delhi  & Ors.  A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2077 held that the notification dated 13  November, 1959 under section 4 of the Act which is  also being  challenged  in these writ petitions  and  appeals  is beyond challenge now. Piecemeal  acquisition which was held to be bad in State  of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma & Ors.  (1966) 3 S.C.R. 557 was validated by the Land Acquisition Amendment and Validation Act with retrospective effect.  The  validity of  the Amending Act has been upheld by this Court  in  Udai Ram  Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1968) 3  S.C.R. 41 and reaffirmed in Aflatoon’s case(supra). The contention that piecemeal acquisition under Notification dated 13 November, 1959 under section 4 of the Act is bad is really  a  challenge to the adequacy of  compensation  under section  23 of the Act.  The Act is protected under  Article 31(5) of the Constitution.  Where acquisition is for  public purpose reasonableness is presumed for such public  purpose. The  challenge under Article 19 of the  Constitution  which, according to the petitioners and the appellants, is directed as a result of the Bank Nationalisation case (1970) 3 S.C.R. 530, can be restricted to procedural reasonableness. The Government set up the Town Planning Organisation in 1955 which  prepared an interim general plan in 1956  for  Delhi. The  influx of displaced persons after the partition of  the country, the growth of slums, the problems of  overcrowding, insanitation, traffic hazards, sub-standard construction and lack  of proper civic amenities led the Government  to  take effective  measures  to  ensure  the  orderly  and   planned development  of the city.  This planning is to  provide  for different classes of people who have to live and work in the city of Delhi. The  plan has to provide for bona fide requirements  of  the public for residential, industrial and commercial  purposes, and  to ensure healthy and properly planned  development  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Delhi, on the basis of the studies made by the Town Planning experts.   The Government decided to acquire 34070 acres  of land in and around the city, develop and then lease out  the same  on  a  non-profit non-loss basis.   With  this  public purpose the Government issued a notification on 13 November, 1959 under section 4 of the Act. 363 The  Draft  Master  Plan  giving  the  detailed  rules   and regulations in respect of the "land use" and allied matters, was  published  in  July,  1960.   In  order  to  meet   the requirements  of  the plan, the  Government  issued  another notification for a further acquisition of about 16000  acres in October, 1961. On  22  October,  1960  the Government  of  India  issued  a notification  under section 6 of the Act.   The  declaration was  that specified land was required to be taken at  public expense for a public purpose, viz., the Planned  Development of Delhi. The main contention of the petitioners and the appellants is that compensation which is to be paid with reference to  the value of the property on the date of the notification is  an unreasonable  restriction to hold and dispose  of  property. It  was  submitted  that compensation should  be  paid  with reference  to  the  value  of  the  property  on  the   date possession  of  the property was taken.  This  question  has been  answered in the judgment in Aflatoon’s  case  (supra). Mathew,  J. speaking for the Court said that  Article  31(5) precludes  such a challenge.  Further, section 4(3)  of  the Land Acquisition Amendment and Validation Act. 1957 provided for  payment of interest at 6 per cent of the  market  value after  the  expiry  of  three years from  the  date  of  the notification  under  section  4 to the date  of  payment  of compensation.   Again, section 24 of the Act  provides  that any  outlay  or  improvement on, or disposal  of,  the  land acquired,  commenced, made or affected without the  sanction of  the Collector after the date of the publication  of  the notification  shall not be taken into consideration  by  the Court  in awarding compensation.  Therefore, any  outlay  or improvement  made with the sanction of the  Collector  after the   date   of  the  notification  will   be   taken   into consideration in awarding compensation. In the Bank Nationalisation case (supra) the acquisition  of property  was required to pass the test of Article 19(5)  on the question of procedural reasonableness.  If for  instance a  Tribunal is authorised to determine compensation  without hearing  the owner it would be exposed to vice.  Section  23 of the Act does not deal with procedure, and, therefore,  is not  exposed to any challenge on the (’round  of  procedural unreasonableness. Declarations  under  section 6 of the Act  pursuant  to  the notification  under section 4 of the Act have been  held  by this  Court to be valid for acquiring the notified land  for the  planned  development  of  Delhi.   In  Aflatoon’s  case (supra).  this  Court held that the planned  development  of Delhi is a public purpose. In Aflatoon’s case (supra) it was held  that in the case of an acquisition of a large area  of land   comprising  several  plots  belonging  to   different persons,  the specification of the purpose can only be  with reference  to  the  acquisition  of  the  whole  area.   The notification  which was for the acquisition of  over  30,000 acres of land in the very nature of things could not specify each  particular purpose, and, therefore, the planned  deve- lopment of Delhi was of sufficient particularity.                             364 In Aflatoon’s case (supra) public purpose with regard to the

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

planned development of Delhi has been upheld. In  Aflatoon’s case (supra) the petitions which were filed in the year 1972 were  held  to  be dilatory.  The reason  is  that  a  valid notification  under  section  4  is  a  sine  qua  non   for initiation  of proceedings for acquisition of property.   In the  present case, section 4 notification in the  year  1959 was followed   by notification under section 6 of the Act in July, 1960 and again in  October, 1961.  In Aflatoon’s  case (supra) it was said that "to  have  sat  on  the  fence  and allowed   the   Government  to  complete   the   acquisition proceedings on the basis that the notification under section 4 and the declaration under section 6 were valid and then to attack  the notification on grounds which were available  to them  at the time when the notification was published  would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics." For  these  reasons,  the  petitions  and  the  appeals  are dismissed Parties will pay and bear their own costs. P.H.P.                      Appeals dismissed. 365