TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublished in the locality as envisaged under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. The learned Judges have upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the planned development of Delhi is a public purpose and that, therefore, notification was not beset with any vagueness in the likely need of the land for the said purpose. It also held that the substance of the notification was published in the locality, Naraina. The Division Bench Considered elaborately various discrepancies pointed out in compliance of the publication of the substance of the notification as noted in the judgment. Thereafter, it was held that they were satisfied that the substance of the notification was in fact effected as per law. 2. The material facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on October 24, 1961. The substance of the notification was published on November 21, 1961. The declaration under Section 6 was published on December 7, 1966 after enquiry under Section 5A. The first question, therefore, is : whether the land was needed or was likely to be needed for public purpose as envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Act? 3. The contention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent. Consequently, there is no acceptable version found from the record. In those circumstances, unless it is proved to the hilt that substance of the notification was in fact published in the locality, the acquisition cannot be declared to be valid in law. The benefit of doubt should go to the owners in upholding the acquisition as it is an expropriatory action. The High Court, therefore, had not considered this aspect of the matter in the proper perspective. Consequently, when the special leave petitions came to be filed in this Court, this Court had called upon the respondents to produce the original record. Since the records had not been produced, adverse inference was drawn and unqualified leave was granted though notice was limited to 2nd point. These circumstances would clearly indicate that there is no compliance of the requirement of publication of the substance of Section 4(1) notification in the locality . Resultantly, the presumption available under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act stands displaced. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in holding that the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) was published in the locality. 4. Shri Nambiar, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d improvement of the village etc. The controversy is no longer res integra. In Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor [1975] 1 SCR 802 a Constitution Bench of this Court, (Mathew, J. speaking for the Court) after an elaborate consideration, held that the acquisition for planned development of Delhi is a public purpose. In the case of an acquisition of a large extent 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 purpose for which every item of land comprised in the area is needed. Under those circumstances, the acquisition of planned development was held to be for public purpose. It Is not necessary to burden the judgment with the development of the law in this behalf. Relevant decisions in this behalf are Smt. Ratni Devi and Anr. v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi and Ors., AIR1975SC1699 ; Pt. Lila Ram v. The Union of India and Ors. [1976] 1 SCR 341 . Om Prakash v. Union of India [1988] 1 SCR 761; Ram Chand and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994)1SCC44; State of Tamil Nad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a developmental plan as required for planned development of the land. But one fact that needs to be emphasized and always kept in mind is that all these are developmental activities to be undertaken subsequent to the acquisition after the land is available. The harping and insistence on compliance of details by Sri Lekhi from several provisions in various Acts do not need elaborate consideration. As a fact High Court had done that exercise and in our view in correct perspective. They need reiteration. Once a public purpose has been specified by the Governor in the notification and on specification obviously on presumptive satisfaction thereof the Governor issued the notification as required under Section 4(1); the absence of the specification and further elaboration of the development do not have the effect of rendering the satisfaction reached by the Governor illegal and the notification under Section 4(1) published by the Governor in exercise of the power of eminent domain is not rendered void. Therefore, it is not necessary to elaborately deal in detail with the manner in which the development has to be undertaken when the land is situated within the cantonment area. In fact, Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sd/- Illegible 21.11. Sir, It is submitted that one copy of the notice has been affixed outside the court of the Land Acquisition Collector; one copy of the notice has been affirmed out-side the Court of Deputy Commissioner, one copy of the notice has been affixed outside the Tehsil office at Kashmere Gate, and one copy has been got affixed at the spot in village Naraina through the Lumberdar. The report is submitted. Sd/- Illegible 21.11.61. 9. It would be seen that the copy of the notification was received by the peon, Daryao Singh and he made an endorsement that he received the copy and affixed the same on some conspicuous place. Thereafter, he made an endorsement which reads that A copy of the notice was affixed outside the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed in the locality. It is not the law and could not and would not be the law that publication of the substance of Section 4(1) notification in the locality should be established beyond shadow of doubt and benefit should be extended to the owner or interested person of the land. Obvious thereto, presumption under Section 114(e) of Evidence Act has been raised that official acts have been properly done unless proved otherwise. We are satisfied that it was properly done. It is futile to reiterate the settled legal position that the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the Gazette and substance thereof in the locality are mandatory requirements and the omission thereof renders the notification void. In Khub Chand's case, this Court had held the same view. But as recorded earlier, since substance of the notification was published in the locality, the second limb of the requirement also stands complied with. Considered from this perspective, we are of the considered view that the High Court has not committed any error of law. 13. Another contention raised by Shri Ravinder Sethi is that the claimant in the first appeal had purchased the property after the declarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
