VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2008 › High Court of Delhi

K.N.Chhibbar & Anr v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
11 April 2008
Bench
T.S. Thakurauthor, Aruna Suresh
Case no.
W.P.(C) 908/2008

Judgment

T.S.THAKUR,J ARUNA SURESH, J APRIL 11, 2008 anb/pk

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 908/2008 Date of Decision: 11th April, 2008 K.N.CHHIBBAR & ANR ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. versus DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. V.K. Shali, Adv. for R-1/DMRC Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv. for UOI + W.P.(C) 992/2008 RITAL IMPEX LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh U. Upadhyay, adv. versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. V.K. Shali, adv. for DMRC Mr. Sanjay Poddar, adv. for LAC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes T.S. Thakur, J The petitioner in these two petitions assail the legality of a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 17.01.2008 issued in respect of properties bearing No. A-17, Kailash Colony and E-19 of East of Kailash, New Delhi. The said two parcels of land which do not have any built-up structure over the same are required for the public purpose of construction of the proposed East of Kailash Metro Station as a part of the "Delhi Metro Rail Project". 2. When W.P.(C)908/2008 first came up for admission on 4th February, 2008 the only ground that was urged on behalf of the petitioner in that petition was that the acquisition of the petitioner's land could be avoided if the respondent/DMRC could shift the proposed Metro Station to an alternative site suggested by the petitioner in terms of a plan, a copy whereof has been placed on record with the writ petition. Mr. Poddar, counsel appearing for the Collector and the representative appearing for the DMRC, however, submitted that the alternative sites suggested by the petitioner in the said plan had been examined but was not found to be technically feasible. It was also pointed out that Mr. E. Sreedharan, Managing Director, DMRC had personally visited the site to examine whether it was possible to shift the station to the alternative site suggested by the petitioner. The site inspection had, however, revealed that the proposed alternatives given by the petitioner were not feasible for several reasons which were then indicated to the petitioner in the said petition. Since there was nothing on record before us to support that version, the respondents were directed to place on affidavit the version of the DMRC as to the feasibility of the station being shifted to the alternative site proposed by the petitioners. Mr. Shali, counsel for the respondent-DMRC has accordingly filed an affidavit sworn by the Chief Project Manager of the DMRC. A perusal of the said affidavit shows that property bearing No. A-17, Kailash Colony measures 1092.69 sq. mt. out of which the DMRC has acquired only 774 sq. mt. of vacant site for construction of the proposed metro station. The affidavit further goes on to state that the petitioners had been constantly making representations at different levels against the proposed station in connection with which they were given personal hearing at different levels but since none of the three alternative proposals submitted by them were found to be technically feasible, the same were rejected. An intimation to that effect was sent even to the petitioners by the Managing Director of the Corporation by his letter dated 21st September, 2007 wherein it was pointed out that the three locations at i) Amar Colony Crossing, ii) Park near LSR & iii) Park near Zamrudpur commercial complex on the Lal Lajpat Rai Path were not either technically feasible due to the alignment in sharp curvature or on account of proposed alternative location having been heavily built up by the private property owners. The affidavit further goes on to state that the alternative proposal which the petitioner has made in t

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.