Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
JAGE RAM & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (4) 615 JT 1995 (9) 126
1995 SCALE (6)431
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
WRIT PETITION [C] NO.851 OF 1988
Jodha Ram & Ors.
V.
Union of India & Ors.
O R D E R
The only question raised in these two writ petitions is
whether an observation is to be made by this Court to the
effect that the petitioners would be entitled to allotment
of alternative sites by the Delhi Development Authority. It
is true that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for
a defence purpose, viz., establishment of Radar. They were
duly paid the compensation demanded of. One of the reliefs
sought in the writ petitions is that since they have been
displaced from their holdings, they need some site for
construction of their house and that, therefore, the
Government of India may make an effort to provide them
alternative sites. We are aware of the decision rendered by
this Court in State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi [(1986) 4 SCC 251
at 260]. But it depends upon the acquisition for which it
was made. In that case, acquisition for which it was made.
In that case, acquisition related to planned development of
housing scheme by Meerut Development Authority. Therefore,
though no scheme was made providing alternative sites to
those displaced pesons whose lands were acquired and who
themselves needed housing accommodations, a direction was
given to the Meerut Development Authority to provide
alternative sits for their housing purpose. Since the
acquisition is only for defence purpose and if the request
is acceded to, it would create innumerable complications, we
are constrained not to accede to forceful pursuasive
argument addressed by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2