TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. 4657/99 was the Delhi Develop- ment Authority. The appeals were allowed and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in CWP. 920 of 1986 dated 17.12.96 was set aside and she said writ petition was dismissed. This Court followed the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram v. Union of India, [1997] 5 SCC 421 relied upon by the appellants in preference to the judgment of a two Judge Bench sn Delhi Development Authority v, Sudan Singh, [1997] 5 SCC 430, relied upon by the Ist respondents-writ petitioners (applicant in these IAs). The writ petitioners before the High Court were Mr. Gurdip Singh Uban, Mrs. Har Sharan Mishra and Mrs. Har Kiran and (hey were respondents in both Civil Appeals. The result was that reversing the High Court's judgment the land acquisition proceedings were upheld by this Court, After the appeals were allowed by this Court on 20.8.99 as stated above. Review Petitions Nos. 1402-1403/99 were filed in the two Civil appeals by Sri Gurdip Singh Uban and they were dismissed in circulation by a reasoned order on 24.11.99. (Another Review Petition No. 21/2000 filed by Mrs. Har Kiran Commar is yet to be circulated. So far as Mrs. Har Kiran Commar is concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land acquisition proceedings had allegedly lapsed. (We shall deal with this writ petition under Point 7). We shall first deal with As, 4 and 5 filed by Sri Gurdip Singh Uban, When these applications 4 and 5 were listed before us finally for arguments, learned Solicitor General, Sri Harish N. Saive raised a preliminary objection that these applications couched as applications for 'clarification', 'modification' or for 'recall' could not be entertained once the Review petitions filed by the applicant were dismissed. He contended that there must be some finality somewhere. These petitions amounted to filing a second review, which was not permissible under the Rules, In any event, a hearing of the case in open Court could not be granted in these IAs. to recall order in the review petition, if the main review petition itself had to be dealt with in circulation. According to Sri Salve, these IAs. were an abuse of the process of Court. On the other hand. learned counsel for the applicant Sri Shanti Bhushan submitted that this was a case where grave injustice would take place if the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeals dated 20,8,99 was allowed to stand w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment of this Court dated 20,8.99 allowing the appeals of the Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority was liable to be set aside on merits, treating this as the first review petition, and whether such a relief could be granted on the ground that the two Judge Bench of this Court in these Civil appeals which followed Abhey Ram {decided by three learned Judges) should have referred Abhey Ram to a larger Bench? (3) Whether the order of the Division Bench in Balak Rum Gupta's case, where there arc two orders, the order dated 14,10.88 allowing the writ petitions in 73 Civil Writ petitions (reasons to follow) controlled the subsequent order passed in those cases on 18.11.88 containing the reasons and whether in the latter order, the High Court could have quashed land acquisition proceedings in writ petitions which were not before them? (4) Whether under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, while dealing with an inquiry report under section 5A, the Government (here the Lt. Governor) is required to give elaborate reasons? (5) To what extent could a person who had not filed objection in section 5A inquiry challenge the section 6 declaration? (6) Whether any re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 'clarification', 'modification' or 'recall' of judgments or orders finally passed. We may point out that under she relevant rule XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, a review application has first to go before the learned Judges in circulation and it will be for the Court lo consider whether the application is to be rejected without giving an oral hearing or whether notice is to be issued. Order XL. R.3 states as follows ; O.XL.R.3 : Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any arguments, but the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments, The Court may either dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party...... In case notice is issued, the review petition will be listed for hearing, after notice is served. This procedure is meant to save the time of Court and to preclude frivolous review petitions being filed and heard in open Court. How-ever, with review a view to avoid this procedure of 'no hearing', we find that sometimes applications are filed for 'clarification', 'modification' or 'recall' etc. not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he main points raised in these applications. Though, in the light of what we have said under point 1 and when particularly these IAs 4 and 5 are filed by Sri Gurdip Singh Uban after dismissal of the review petitions, they deserve to be rejected, we felt that in view of the pendency of another Review Petition 21/2000 - by another party Mrs. Har Kiran Commar (who was not a petitioner in Review Petitions 1402-1403/99) arising out of the same judgment in Civil Appeal wherein the same questions are raised (and which review petition is yet to be circulated), we could as well deal with matter on merits as if we are dealing with the first review and give a quietus to these questions. We are also no! going into the question of error apparent because we want to give a quietus to these issues. To this course, respondents have agreed that we may deal with the points on merits so as to put an end to the questions. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sri Shanti Bhushan initially made a vehement plea for 'justice'' and contended that in every case where there was 'injustice', this Court should not feel shackled by rules of procedure nor constrained by the limited scop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion there was whether the section 6 declaration dated 7.6.85 was issued in time or not. In between section 4 and section 6 notifications, there were several stay orders passed in earlier writ petitions. The Full Bench held that, the period covered by the said stay orders was to be excluded for the entire acquisition and for the entire land even though the said orders were passed in some of the individual writ petitions and that section 6 declaration was to be treated as in time. After the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court gave its opinion on the question of limitation, it remitted the batch of cases to the Division Bench for deciding on other points - including the question as to whether section 5A inquiry was properly conducted and whether section 6 declaration was properly issued. We are told that among the writ petitions - which were more than 70 - there were some where the petitioners had not filed objection in the section 5A inquiry, as in the case before us. The Division Bench heard the arguments on the validity of the section 5A inquiry and the section 6 declaration. On their conclusion, the Bench allowed the writ petitions and made the rule absolute'' by a br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence Act only deals with judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency jurisdictions as judgments in rem. The crucial question, therefore, is whether - in a situation where each of the seventy and odd writ petitioners of 1985 covered specific areas and the brief order dated 14.10.88 allowed the writ petitions - the said order could be treated' as one affecting the entire notification under section 6 and even cases where objections were not filed under section 5A as in the case before us. Question also arises whether the final order dated 18.11,88 containing reasons as re-ported in B.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1989) 37 DLT 150 (DB), could have covered the entire area in the 12 villages, about 50,000 bighas even with regard to the other claimants whose writ petitions were not before the Division Bench and even other cases where no objections were filed in Section 5A inquiry? In our view, if the Court allows a writ petition and reasons were to follow later, the first order allowing the writ petition and issuing the writ absolute is the operative order. If reasons therefor are supplied later, as a matter of convenience, the latter order containing reasons cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners on the other hand contended that the case was governed not by Abhey Ram but by an earlier two Judge judgment dated 20.9.91 in yet another case in Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh, [1997] 5 SCC 430, where this Court had decided in favour of the claimants by referring to the latter order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 18.11.88 in Balak Ram Gupta's case containing reasons, where the court said that the entire land acquisition proceedings were quashed. But this Court, in the present Civil Appeals 4656 and 4657 of 1999 felt bound by the three Judge ruling in Abhey Ram. In the present IAs, it is contended that this Court should have followed Sudan Singh. It is true that Sudan Singh is in favour of the applicants before us in stating that the entire land acquisition proceedings stood quashed. But we may point out that Sudan Singh was explained in Abhey Rant and was distinguished In para 12 on the ground mat the brief operative order of the High Court in Balak Ram Gupta dated 14.10.88 passed in each of the 73 writ petitions was not noticed in Sudan Singh and that it was that order dated 14.10.88 that was material and not the wide observations in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Officer is to the objections' in each case raising issues-personal to each objector. In fact, no argument has been advanced before the Division Bench of the High Court or even before us that the purpose is not a public purpose. In our view, it is not possible for the applicants to contend that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to apply his mind to objections which were indeed never filed before him. On fresh consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that Abhey Ram was decided correctly - if we may say so with great respect. - and that the latter order of Division Bench in the writ petitions in the batch in Balak Ram Gupta must be confined to the writ absolute orders dated 14.10,88 in each of those 73 writ petitions and to the land covered thereby, because the objections filed were personal to each case and there was no argument before the Division Bench or even before us that there was no public purpose or that there was colourable exercise of power. We are of me view shut the Division Bench of the High Court in its latter order dated 18.1l.88 containing reasons could nor in law have quashed the section 5A inquiry and section 6 declaration covering all othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.11.88 in Balak Ram Gupta was also available and naturally the appellant raised a plea based on the latter order of she Division Bench judgment dated 18.11.88 which said that entire section 5A inquiry and the entire land acquisition proceedings stood quashed. The appellant in Abhey Ram, in our view, was certainly entitled to do so. His contention was, however, repelled in Abhey Ram holding that notwithstanding the broad language used in the latter reasoned order dated 18.11.88, its area of operation was to be confined to what was stated by the same Division Bench earlier on 14.10.88 when a brief operative order was passed in the 73 cases allowing the writ petitions. We have already held that the writ absolute dated 14.10.88 in each case was based on non- consideration of objections and not on the basis of there being no public purpose and that the decision m each case must, therefore, be confined to the land covered therein. The three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram held that the reasoned order dated 18.11,88 of the Division Bench could not travel beyond the earlier operative order dated 14.10.88 and could not have covered land other than the land involved in the said batch of writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnor should have expressed his satisfaction under section 6. The Bench observed : Similar orders are passed in relation to all the eleven villages as if there was a prescribed pro forma. Section 6( 1) requires that the appropriate Government, in this case Adminislrator/Lt. Governor of Delhi should consider the report under section 5-A. After consideration he has to satisfy himself that particular land is needed for the public purpose. The consideration of the report including the objections of the objectors must be based on facts as disclosed in the order, The Division Bench went on to say : A mere statement, as is made in the present case, that the Lt. Governor has carefully gone through the Report and also considered the objections is not sufficient compliance of Section 6 of the Act. His satisfaction that particular land is required to be acquired is also to be arrived at on congent and intelligent appreciation of the objections and the Section 5-A report, Mere statement that he is satisfied about the acquisition of particular land without stating any reasons will be mindless exercise of the powers under section 6 of the Act. The order of the Lt. Governor must disclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;particular land but in our view while referring to its satisfaction in regard to the need to acquire the entire land, the Government need not refer to every piece of particular land. It is sufficient if the authority which conducts the section 5A inquiry has considered the objections raised in relation to any particular land. Even where the said authority accepts the objections, that is not binding on the Government which can take a different view for good reasons. Where the Government agrees with the report under section 5A, the declaration under section 6 need not advert to the reasons or facts concerning each piece of land. Hence, the wide observations made in Balak Ram Gupta's case cannot be accepted. In Abhey Ram as well as in the judgment in the Civil Appeals, it has been clearly stated that those claimants who have not filed objections to the section 4 notification cannot be permitted to contend before Court that the section 5A inquiry is vitiated so far as they are concerned. Nor can they be permitted to seek quashing of section 6 declaration on that ground. We shall elaborate this aspect further. Now abjections under section 5A, if filed, can relale to the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the satisfaction of the Government/Lt, Governor can relate only to each of these pieces of land and not the whole. Therefore, there is no question of the Division Bench holding in its order dated 18.11,88 that the satisfaction of the Lt. Governor in respect of the entire land is vitiated. As already stated, the satisfaction regarding public purpose was never in issue, It was then argued that satisfaction under section 6 for the rest of the land not covered by the 73 writ petitioner or even where no objections are filed under section 5A, must be held vitiated because the objections filed in certain other cases were not properly considered by the officer and hence the section 6 satisfaction of the Lt. Governor for the rest of the land is also vitiated. We are unable to agree that in the cases not before the Division Bench and in particular in cases where no objections are filed, the satisfaction under section 6 is vitiated because in some other cases, the objections which were filed were not properly disposed of. As to rejection of personal ground of each writ petitioner - other than the 73 writ petitions - there was no occasion for the Lt. Governor to apply his mind if object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C/South/S-7) signed by the Joint Director representing as follows : Acquisition proceedings/Notification has been quashed by the Hon'bie High Court in case of Shri B.R. Gupta and Ors. You are, therefore, requested to kindly approach the MCD for approval of the building plans and ADM(R) lor getting N.O.C. for construction on the said land. Later, after completing formalities, the applicant constructed a house. In our view, there is a clear representation by the DDA to the applicant and he has acted upon it. Having regard to the principles in section 115 of the Evidence Act, a question of estoppel prima facie arises in favour of the applicant. We are sure that the applicant's case for release under section 48 will be sympathetically considered in the light of the various factors mentioned in the con-cession of the learned Solicitor General set out above. As to the extent of land that can be released under Section 48 in addition to the building, it has to be left to the reasonable discretion of the competent authority. We, therefore, direct that the applicant's application, if made within 15 days from today, the same be considered within 8 weeks after such filing, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person who claims purchaser under a power of attorney it is also pointed out that the land of I bigha and 17 biswas could not have been sold and that NOC under the Delhi Land Restriction and Transfer) Act. 1972 does. not have the effect of releasing the land for acquisition. Sales are illegal. it is said, because of sections 1 and 2 of Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 read wish section 1(2) clause (c) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Act 8/1954) We do not propose to go into these questions. It will be for the petitioner to move the High Court and raise the contentions in that Court, We dismiss the writ petition with leave to move the High Court. We should not be understood as having said anything on the merits. Point 7 is held accordingly. Point 8 : This point concerns Mrs. Har Kiran Commar whose Review Petition 217 2000 is pending and is yet to be circulated under O.XL.R.3. While the said application is pending for review, the same applicant has filed this IA3 for the reliefs already set out at the beginning of this judgment. The points raised in the IA3 are clearly in substance points which are raised in the pending review application. By describing this application as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
