AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.—The relief claimed by the Petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is for an appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No.2 to make a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) and to give compensation including solarium and interest thereon to the Petitioners in respect of acquisition of land measuring 332.33 square meters being a portion of 12, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
The case of the Petitioners as set up in the writ petition is that their land was acquired by virtue of Notifications dated 5th September, 1991 u/s 4 of the LA Act followed by a declaration dated 14th October, 1991 under Sections 6 and 17(1) of the LA Act. Possession of the land was taken on 3rd February, 1992 and an Award was also passed on 28th May, 1992.
According to the Petitioners, they sought a reference u/s 18 of the LA Act on 30th September, 1992 but no reference has been made despite several representations for over ten years, which ultimately led the Petitioners to file the present petition.
The Respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition in which it is stated that on 3rd December, 1981, an area measuring 697.128 square meters in 12, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (then known as Curzon Road) was declared excess land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Restriction) Act, 1976 (ULCR Act). The Petitioners did not challenge the order dated 3rd December, 1981 by filing an appeal and as such the said order became final. Subsequently, however, the Petitioners filed a revision petition u/s 34 of the ULCR Act which was dismissed by the Lt. Governor on 23rd July, 1996. A copy of the order passed by the Lt. Governor has been filed along with the counter affidavit.
It is stated that under these circumstances, 697.128 square meters of land in 12, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi stood vested in the Respondents and the Petitioners are at best entitled to get compensation in respect thereof under the provisions of the ULCR Act.
Inadvertently, a part of this land measuring 332.33 square meters was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and an Award in respect thereof being Award No.6/92-93 was also made. The Petitioners fraudulently did not bring it to the notice of the Land Acquisition Collector that the land measuring 332.33 square meters had already been acquired under the provisions of the ULCR Act and stood vested in the Respondents and as such could not be the subject matter of acquisition under the provisions of the LA Act.
When we heard the writ petition, we wanted to know the details of the proceedings that had taken place under the provisions of the ULCR Act but were told that the departmental file is missing. It is common knowledge that land in Kasturba Gandhi Marg, which is in the heart of Delhi, is prime property and it is very surprising that the file in this regard has gone missing. Looking to the seriousness of the matter and the monetary stakes involved, we would direct the Crime Branch, Delhi Police to under make an inquiry to find out the whereabouts of this file. Learned counsel for the Respondents informed us that some sort of a departmental inquiry has already been conducted into the file having gone missing but that has not yielded any result. It is for this reason that we have no option but to direct the Crime Branch to look into the matter.
Coming back to the merits of the case, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the Respondents when they state on affidavit that the land measuring 332.33 square meters had been taken over under the provisions of the ULCR Act and stood vested in the Respondents. It was declared surplus land by the Competent Authority by his order dated 3rd December, 1981. The Petitioners did not file any appeal against the order of the Competent Authority but filed a revision which also came to be dismissed by the L. Governor on 23rd July, 1996. Consequently, there can be no question of the Petitioners getting any compensation for this land under the provisions of the LA Act.
The facts as disclosed in the counter affidavit ought to have been disclosed in the first instance by the Petitioners in the writ petition. There is no mention in the writ petition about any land of the Petitioners out of 12, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi having been taken over by the Respondents under the provisions of the ULCR Act. We are of the view that this is a very serious suppression of facts. The Petitioners should have brought these facts to the notice of the Court and raised whatever submissions were available to them in law but they could not have suppressed these facts because they have a material bearing on the issue that has been raised before us. In view of the gross suppression of facts also, the writ petition merits dismissal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition both on merits and for willful suppression of material facts.
Since the Petitioners failed to disclose material facts before us, we impose costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by each of the Petitioners. The costs will be paid to the Secretary, Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi within four weeks from today.