http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI GHANSHYAM DASS KEDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/12/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (2) 285        JT 1995 (9)   618  1995 SCALE  (7)348

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      We have  heard the  counsel for  the parties.  The main question  canvassed   before  the  Division  Bench  in  W.P. Nos.3084/87 was  that the  Government was  not justified  in invoking s.17(1)  read with s.17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ’the Act’) dispensing with the enquiry under s.5A. The  High Court  following its  earlier  decision  has quashed the notification on the ground that the notification did  not   recite  the   nature  of   the  urgency.  Planned Development of  Delhi is  not  urgent  and,  therefore,  the exercise of  the power  under s.17(4) was illegal. We do not find that  the view  taken by  the High  Court is  legal and correct. In  Aflatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. [(1975)] 1  SCR 802],  the Constitution  Bench of this Court had upheld  the exercise  of power  under s.17(4) dispensing the enquiry  under s.5-A.  It was for planned development of Delhi which  would take  long time for development. Yet this court upheld  the exercise  of the  power of  urgency. It is subjective satisfaction  of  the  Government  based  on  the material on  record. The High Court is not a court of appeal over  subjective   satisfaction  and   the  opinion  of  the Government is entitled to great weight. Therefore, it cannot be said that the notification should specifically recite the nature of the urgency. It is enough, if the record discloses the consideration  by the  Government on  urgency for taking action under ss.17(1) and (2).      However, this  conclusion does not solve the problem in this case.  It is  seen that the employer of the respondents had obtained  sanction from  the Delhi Municipal Corporation as early  as in 1951. A plan thereof has been annexed in the paper book  as annexure to the Additional Affidavit filed by Laxman Prasad  Mittal. It  is an admitted fact that the plan has not  so far  seen the light of the day except production for the first time in this Court. No application under Order 41 Rule  27 CPC  was filed.  So it  cannot  be  received  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

evidence. Be it as it may, it is not in dispute that about 3 acres of  land was  earmarked by  the Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving  Mill has become disused but the respondents had purchased under  registered sale  deeds from  their employer certain extents of land and most of them had 330 sq.yd. Some of them  purchased in  excess also.  It is  seen  that  they purchased these  lands for residential purpose long prior to the notification and master plan.      This Court  on November  9, 1995,  issued direction  as stated hereunder :      "It transpires  that the respondents are      now  retired   employees  of  the  Birla      Cotton Spinning  and Weaving  Mills Ltd.      and  they   needed   these   sites   for      residential   construction.    When   we      requested Shri  Saharya, learned counsel      for the  DDA to show us the localisation      of the  land in the existing zonal plan,      counsel is  handicapped for  not  having      the  details.   He  sought  for  and  is      granted two  weeks time  to produce  the      zonal plan.  With the  assistance of his      officers and  also after  notice to Shri      Venugopal, learned  senior  counsel  and      his  instructing   counsel  they   would      localise  the  land  of  6600  sq.  yds.      purchased  by  the  20  respondents  and      needed for  their housing purpose. If it      would  be   possible  to  demarcate  and      delete this  part of  the land,  perhaps      much of the controversy may not survive.      Under these circumstances, the matter is      adjourned to do the needful."      Shri V.B.Sahariya,  the learned  counsel appearing  for the DDA,  has  placed  before  us  additional  affidavit  of P.C.Jain, Additional Commissioner (Area Planning) DDA, Delhi together with annexures. In Annexure I, they have identified the land  originally held  by the  Mill approximating  three acres. Thereunder,  they identified in north-east Corner the land which  the respondents had purchased. In the Area Plan, Annexure-2, the  land is  reserved for institutional purpose and for  Education and  Research in Annexure-3. It is marked as red  and in  Annexure-4, it  was identified  abutting the road by  name Mehrauli Road. It is in the middle of the area reserved for  institution  (Education  &  Research).  It  is stated  in  Annexure  I  that  on  the  eastern  side,  Azad Appartments are  situated;  on  the  northern  side,  it  is abutting the  Mehrauli Road.  In that view of the matter, it would be expedient that since the respondents have purchased long  before   the  master  plans  have  been  prepared  for residential purpose  and on  the  eastern  side  residential flats are in existence, there may not be much difficulty for change of  user of  the land  and the  plan, leaving out the portion of the land for the residential purpose.      It  is   not  in  dispute  that  19  persons  now  want construction of  their houses  in this  area. Though some of them had purchased more than 330 sq. yds, uniformly everyone should have  330 sq. yds. We are of the considered view that it is appropriate for the appellant-Union of India to change user of  land in  the Master  and Zonal  Plans to  the above extent and  direct the  Lt. Governor  to carve out the above land as part of the residential purpose which is adjacent to already  existing  residential  apartment.  The  appropriate Government   would    suitably   consider   withdrawl   from acquisition to  the above  extent only  and  allow  use  for

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

residential purpose. They would take proper steps to release that part of the land which is necessary for the respondents to construct  their houses.  The area  needed for  amenities like road etc. need to be provided to these 19 plots and the same  would   also  be   set  part.   Necessary   permission accordingly be  given to  the respondents  as per  rules  by granting sanction to construct their houses.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The direction  for release of the land should not be treated as a  precedent in another case. It would be confined to the special facts in this case. No costs. 5827