Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5054 OF 2008
M/S. COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. The challenge in this appeal is the Judgment
dated 25.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Delhi in
W.P. (C) No. 4694 of 2002 and other connected
matters.
2. In the impugned Judgment, the High Court upheld
the proceedings taken for acquisition of the land on
the ground that Section 6 Declaration (of Land
JUDGMENT
Acquisition Act, 1894) was within time. It appears
that the appellant herein pursued a Review Petition
before the High Court, which was also dismissed.
3. When the matter came up before this Court, by way
of interim order dated 15.05.2007, this Court stayed
the dispossession.
4. When the appeal was heard on 07.01.2016, this
Court passed the following order :-
Page 1
2
"Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties for sometime, we feel that
certain factual aspects which are
critical for the decision of this case
are required. Therefore, the appellant
as well as the competent officers of
the D.D.A (Respondent No. 5) are
directed to file an affidavit after
verifying the records of the High Court
and this Court stating clearly the
period during which any stay operated
in the case of acquisition of property
referred to in this case after
08.07.2002. The affidavit shall be
filed within a week.
List the matter on Thursday i.e.
14th January, 2016 as part-heard.
JUDGMENT
Counsel for the appellant is also
free to produce certified copies of the
orders instead of filing the
affidavit."
5. Thereafter, on 14.01.2016, this Court passed the
following order :-
"Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute
that the records do not give any indication
Page 2
3
that the time fixed for passing the Award in
terms of the Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984, has expired.
The submissions having been made after
verifying the records, we do not feel
necessary to have any further affidavit in
that regard.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at
some length.
However, having extensively heard the
learned counsel for the parties, we do not
find fit to continue the interim order
granted by this Court on 15.05.2007. Hence,
the interim order dated 15.05.2007 is
vacated.
Arguments remained part-heard.
List the matter on 21.01.2016 as
JUDGMENT
part-heard."
6. On 21.01.2016, this Court passed the following order :-
"The fifth respondent is directed to file an
affidavit whether the Delhi Development
Authority is keen on acquisition of the
property which is heavily built up as can be
seen from the photographs produced before the
Court. It is to be made clear in the
Page 3
4
affidavit as to what purpose they intend to
use it for. The Delhi Development Authority
shall necessarily refer also to the
Notification dated 19.01.2007.
It will certainly be open to the officers
concerned to conduct physical verification of
the said property before filing the
affidavit.
The affidavit shall be filed within six
weeks.
Post after six weeks as part-heard. "
7. An affidavit, accordingly, has been filed by the
Principal Commissioner, Land Management, Delhi
Development Authority stating that in view of the
intervening developments, it is not feasible to
proceed with the acquisition. Para 4 of the said
affidavit is reproduced below :-
JUDGMENT
"That the joint inspection report has been
considered by the competent authority and
keeping in view that area is forming part
of Abadi Deh/Lal Dora of village Mehrauli
and being built up at site with monuments,
graveyards, masjids, Lal Masjid, Aulia
Masjid, Jahaz Mahal, Kanati Masjid and
vacant land of about 9 Bigha, it has been
Page 4
5
observed that acquisition of built up land
would involve massive demolition and cause
hardships to the occupant of the land.
Therefore, it has been decided not to
pursue the acquisition proceedings subject
to further orders by this Hon'ble Court.
It is pertinent to mention here that the
Petitioner is carrying out commercial
activity at the land in his alleged
possession contrary to the permitted land
use. However, it will be without prejudice
to rights of the respondent to acquire the
same in accordance with law if need so
arises. "
8. In that view of the matter, it has become
unnecessary for us to consider this appeal on merits.
JUDGMENT
The acquisition proceedings in respect of the land
belonging to the appellant are set aside. Needless
to say, the land stands consequently denotified.
9. We make it clear that this Judgment shall not
stand in the way of the competent authority taking
appropriate steps, as referred to in Paragraph 4 of
the affidavit, which is extracted above.
Page 5
6
10. With the above observations and directions, this
appeal is disposed of.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
May 11, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Page 6