Smt. Ratni Devi & Anr. v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi & Ors.

RAY, C.J.-Thcrc arc two principal questions in these ' writ peti.- tions and civil appeals. First. is compensation which is related to the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act referred to as the Act bad ? Second, is planned development of Delhi bad and vague ?

This Court in Afloatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. A.LR. 1974 S.C. 2077 held that the notification :dated 13 November, 1959 under section 4 of the Act which is also being challenged in these writ petitions and appeals is beyond challooge now.

'

Piecemeal acquisition which was held to be bad in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Vishnu Prai·ad Shanna & Ors. (1966) 3 S.C.R. 557 was validated by the Land Acquisition Amendment and Validation Act with retrospective effect. The validity of the Amending Act has been upheld by this Court in Udai Ram Sharma & Ors. v. U11i01t of India & Ors. (1968) 3 S.C.R. 41 and reaffirmed in Aflatoort.'s cue (supra).

The contention that piecemeal acquisition under Notification dated 13 November, 1959 under section 4 of the Act is bad is really a challenge to the adequacy of compensation under section 23 of the Act. The Act is protected under Article 31 ( 5) of the Constitution. Where acquisition is for public purpose reasonableness is prerumed for such public purpose. The challenge under Article 19 of the Con- ~titution which, according to the petitioners and the appellants, is directed as a result of the Bank NatioMlisation case (1970) 3 S.C.R. 530, can be restricted to procedural reasonableness.

The Government set up the Tol\'n Planning Organisation in 1955 which prepared an interim general plan in 1956 for Delhi. The influx of displaced persons after the partition of the country, the growth of slums, the problems of over-croWc!ing, insanitation, traffic hazards, sub-standard construction and lack of proper civic amenities· led the Government to take effective measures to ensure the orderly and planned development of the city. This planning is to provide for different classes of people who have to live and work in the city of Delhi.

The plan has to provide for bona fide requirements of the public for residential, industrial and commercial purposes. and to ensure healthy and properly planned developmeqt of Delh~ on the basis of the studies made by the Town Planning experts. The Government decided to acquire 34070 acres of land in and around the city, deve· lop and ·then lease out the same on a non-profit non-loss basis. With this public purpose the Government issued a notification on 13 Nov-ember, 1959 under section 4 of the Act.

The Draft Master Plan giving the detailed rules and regulations in respect of the "land use" and allied matters, was published in July, 1960. In order to meet the requirements of the plan, the Government issued another notification for a further acquisition of about 16000 acres in October, 1961.

On .22 October, 1960 the Government of India issued a notifica-tion under section 6 of the Act. The declaration was that specified land was required to be taken at public expense· for a public purpose, viz., the Planned Development of Delhi.

The main contention of the petitioners and the appellants is that compensation which is to be paid with reference to the value of the property 01_1 the date of the notification is an unreasonable restriction to hold and dispose .of property. It was submitted that compensation should be paid with reference to the value of the property on the date possession of the property was taken. This question has been ans-wered in the judgment in Aflataan's case (supra). Mathew, J. speaking for the Court said that Article 31 (5) precludes such a challenge. Further, section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition Amendment and Validation Act, 1957 provided for payment of interest at 6'per cent of the market value after the expiry of three years from the date-of the notification under section 4 to the date of payment of compen-sation. Again, section 24 of the Act provides that any outlay or im-provement on, or disposal of, the land acquired, commenced, made or affected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification shall not .be taken into consideration by the Court in awarding compensation. Therefore, any outlay or improve-ment made with the sanction of the Collector after the date of the notification will be taken into consideration in awarding compensation.

In the Bank Nationalisation case (supra) the acquisition of i property was required to pass the test of Article 19(5) on the ques-

tion of procedural reasonableness. lf for instance a Tribunal is autho-rised to determine compensation without hearing the owner it would be exposed to vice. Section 23 of the Act does not deal with proce-dure, and, therefore, is not exposed to any challenge on the ground of. proceduraf unreasonableness.

Declarations under section 6 of the Act pursuant to the notifica-tion under section 4 of the Act have been held by this Court .to be valid for acquiring the notified land for the planned devekipment of Deihl. In Aflatoon's case (supra) this Court held that the plaruied development of Delhi is a public purpose. In Aflataon's case (supra) it was held that 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 ac-quisition· of the whole area. The notification which was for the acqui-sition of over 30,000 acres of land in the very nature of things could not specify each particular purpose, and, therefore, the planned deve-lopment of Delhi was of sufficient particularity.

In Aflatoon's case (supra) public purpose with regard ·to the planned development of Delhi has been upheld. In Aflatoon's case (supra) the petitions which were filed in the year 1972 were held to be dilatory. The reason is that a valid notification under section 4 is a sine qua non for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of pro-perty. In the present case, section 4 notification in the year 1959 was foljowed by notification under section 6 of the Act in July, ) 960 and again in October, 1961. In Af/atoon's case (supra) it was said tha.t "to have sat on the fence and allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that the notification under section 4 and the declaration under section 6 were valid and then to attack the notification on grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics."

For these reasons, the petitions and the appeals are dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 332 and 333 of 1971.

, From the judgment and order dated 13-8-1970 of the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. Nos: 125 and 126 of 1970.

D. P. Singh, (In W.P. No. 333/71) and C.A. No. 609/72), R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and V. !. Francis, for appellants in ap-peals.

S. N. Prasad and R .· N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. 1-3 in W.Ps. and respondents in appeals.