TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, viz., the planned development of Delhi. Between 1959 and 1961, about six thousand objections were filed under s. 5A of the Act. The objec- tions were civerruled. On March 18, 1966, the declaration under S. 6 of the Act was published in respect of a portion of the area. Thereafter, in 1970, notices were issued under s. 9(1) of the, Act requiring the appellants to state their objections, if any, to the assessment of compensation. The appellants thereupon challenged the validity of proceedings for acquisition before the, High Court of Delhi on the following, grounds : (1) that the acquisition was not for public purpose but for companies and so the provisions of Part VII of the Act ought to have been complied with, (2) since no part of the compensation payable came from the public exchequer, the acquisition was not for a public purpose and (3) that the proceedings for acquisition violated the fundamental right of the, appellants under Article 19(1)(f) as there was unreasonable delay between the publication of the notification under s. 4 and the issue of the notices under s. 9 of the Act with the result that the appellants were deprived of the benefit of the appreciation in value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication was void ab initio. The last contention was that the acquisition was not for any public purpose, but for companies, as the major portion of the,land acquired was allotted without any development to cooperative housing societies which were companies within the definition of the word Company' in the Act and as the provisions of Part VII of the Act were not complied with, the proceedings for acquisition were bad. The influx of displaced persons in 1947 from West Pakistan into Delhi aggravated the problem of housing accommodation in Delhi. With the extension of industrial and commercial activities and the setting up of the foreign embassies, Delhi acquired enormous potential as an employment centre. The consequent increase in the population was not accompanied by an adequate expansion of lousing facilities. There was haphazard and unplanned growth of houses in different areas; land also was not available at reasonable price as substantial portion of the available land, suitable for development, had passed into the hands of private enterprises. The Government found it necessary to take effective steps to check the haphazard growth of houses and to prevent substandard con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others(2), this Court held that a notification under s. 4 of the Act which stated that the land was needed for Development and utilization of the said lands as an industrial and residential area was sufficient specification of public purpose. In the case of an acquisition of a large area of land comprising several plots belonging to different persons, the specification of the purpose can only be with reference to the acquisition of the whole area. Unlike in the case of an acquisition of a small area, it might be practically difficult to specify the particular public purpose for which each and every item of land comprised in the area is needed. Assuming for the moment that the public purpose was not sufficiently specified in the notification, did the appellants make a grievance of it at the appropriate time? If the appellants had really been prejudiced by the non- specification of the public purpose for which the plots in which they were interested were needed, they should have taken steps to have the notification quashed on that ground within a reasonable time. They did not move in the matter even after the declaration under r 6 was publishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a large portion of the land after the acquisition proceedings were finalised to Cooperative lousing societies. To quash the notification at this stage would disturb the rights of third parties who are not before the Court. As regards the second contention that there, was inordinate delay in finalizing the acquisition proceedings, and that the appellants and writ petitioners were deprived of the appreciation in value of the land in which they were interested, it may be, noted that about 6,000 objections were filed under s. 5A by persons interested in the property. Several writ petitions were also filed in 1966 and 1967 challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings. The Government had necessarily to wait for the disposal of the objections and petitions before proceeding further in the matter. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were of the view that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the Government in completing the acquisition proceedings. We are not persuaded to come to a different conclusion. Linked with the above contention was the argument that the provisions of s. 23 of the Act imposes unreasonable restrictions upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n awarding compensation. This provision means that any outlay or improvement made with the sanction of the Collector after the date of the notification will be taken into consideration in awarding compensation. In R. C. Cooper v. Union of India(1), this Court has observed that although a law for acquisition of property must pass the test of Article 19(5), the challenge to the law would ordinarily be limited to the question of procedural unreasonableness. This is what the Court said . . . Where the law provides for compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose, it may be presumed that the acquisition or the law relating thereto imposes a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. If there is no public purpose to sustain compulsory acquisition, the law violates Art. 31(2). If the acquisition is for a public purpose, substantive reasonableness of the restriction which includes deprivation may, unless otherwise established, be presumed, but enquiry into reasonableness of the procedural provisions will not be excluded. For instance, if a tribunal is authorised by an Act to determine compensation for property compulsorily acquired, without hearing the owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) where that area is an area other than a development area, approval of, or sanction for, such development has been obtained in writing from the local authority concerned or any officer or authority thereof empowered or authorised in this behalf, in accordance with the provisions made by or under the law governing such authority or until such provisions have been made, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations relating to the grant of permission for development made under the Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Act, 1955, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act. Provided that the local authority concerned may subject to the provisions of s. 53A amend those regulations in their application to such area. (4) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any area no development shall be undertaken or carried out in that area unless such development is also in accordance with such plans. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (3) and (4) development of any land begun by any department of Government or any local authority before the commencement of this Act may be completed by that department or local authority withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land for planned development under the Act. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to do with acquisition of property; acquisition generally precedes development. For planned development in an area other than a development area it is only necessary to obtain the sanction or approval of the local authority as provided in S. 12(3). The Central Government could acquire any property under the Act and develop it after obtaining the approval of the local authority. We do not think it necessary to go into the question whether the power to acquire the land under s. 15 was delegated by the Central Government to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. We have already held that the appellants and the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of the notification under s. 4 on the ground of laches and acquiescence. The plea that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi had no authority to initiate the proceeding for acquisition by issuing the notification under s. 4 of the Act as s. 15 of the Delhi Development Act gives that-power only to the Central Government relates primarily to the validity of the notification. Even assuming that the Chief Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
