VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2009 › High Court of Delhi

Madhulika Srivastava v. Union of India

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
27 August 2009
Bench
Vikramajit Sen, V.K. Jainauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 1426/2001

Judgment

V.K.JAIN, J.

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

AUGUST 27, 2009 acm/sk

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) no. 1426/2001 Reserved on: 18th August, 2009 Pronounced on: 27th August, 2009. # Mrs. MADHULIKA SRIVASTAVA & ANR. ..... Petitioners ! Through :Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.M.K. Pradhan and Mr.P. Verma, Advocates for the petitioner VERSUS $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents ^ Through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for Respondent/LAC. Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for Respondent/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 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. V.K.Jain, J. This is a Petition seeking quashing of Award No.6- B/Suppl./81-82, whereby land of the Petitioners, measuring 1bigha and 4 biswas, comprised in Khasra No.288 Min. of Village Jasola, was acquired. 2. It has been alleged in the Petition that the Petitioners purchased land in question from Ram Prasad, Mahesh Chand, Mehar Chand, Sat Pal and Satvir vide Registered Sale Deed, on the basis of a "No Objection Certificate" issued by Additional District Magistrate (LA) Delhi. It was stated in No Objection Certificate that Notification No.F-4(9)64/L&H dated 7.12.1966 issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, had lapsed. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in respect of land in question was issued on 6.4.1964 followed by the notification under Section 6 of the Act on 7.12.1966. It has been claimed in the Petition that since notifications under Section 4 and 6 had lapsed, it was not within the power of the respondents to acquire land in question and the award whereby his land was acquired is against the provisions of Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act, which provides a limitation for making the award. It has also been pleaded that the award is null, void and illegal in view of the admission of the Respondents that the notification under Sections 4 and 6 had already lapsed. 3. In its counter affidavit respondent DDA has stated that Hari Ram and Ram Prasad, owners of land in question, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 812 of 1984, challenging acquisition of various pieces of land including the land in question. Vide an interim order dated 15th March, 1984, this court restrained the respondents from making award. In WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985, titled as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., the Hon"ble Supreme Court was concerned with the construction of sewage treatment plants in various colonies of Delhi. Various stay orders passed in respect of land in village Jasola, which was required for construction of Okhla Sewage Treatment Plant were brought to the notice of Hon"ble Supreme Court. DDA, with the permission of Hon"ble Supreme Court, published an advertisement, requiring the petitioners, in the petitions, in which the stay orders pertaining to land required for construction of Okhla Sewage Treatment Plant were passed, to appear before the Hon"ble Supreme Court. Out of large tracts of land subject matter of CWP 812 of 1984, only land measuring 2 bighas and 14 biswa, in khasra No. 158 of village Jasola, was subject matter of the application of DDA before the Hon"ble Supreme Court. Khasra No. as well as area of the land required in village Jasola, for construction of Okhla Sewage Treatment Plant was specifically mentioned in the notice. The petition were transferred by the Hon"ble Supreme Court to itself and the stay orders granted by the High Court were vacated, and Delhi Administration was directed to take over possession of land and handover the same to Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking. The Hon"ble Supreme Court made it clear that possession of only those khasra number was to be taken which were mentioned in public notice. Consequently, stay granted by this court continued to operate in respect of remaining land subject matter of WP(C) No. 812 of 1984. WP (C) No. 812 of 1984 was decide

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.