Judgment
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:
28. 10.2014 W.P.(C) 5944/2013 MADHUSUDAN ..... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Maan with Mr Vishal Maan. For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for R-2/LAC. CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition concerns the acquisition proceedings which were commenced by the issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) on 04.02.1988. The subject lands are situated in mustatil No.54, killa No.2/2/2 min.(1-09), 9 min (3-11), 10/1 (2-01), 12 (4-12), 19/1 (014), in all measuring 12 bighas and 7 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Bharthal, New Delhi.
2. Earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 2803/1988 challenging the invocation of sections 17(2) and 17(4) of the said Act. That challenge was sustained by a Division Bench of this court by virtue of its judgment dated 27.04.2006. The Division Bench did not quash the notification under section 4 but quashed the notification under section 17(2) and 17(4) of the said Act and granted liberty to the petitioner to file objections under section 5A of the said Act before the competent authority within 30 days from the date of the said judgment. The petitioner filed the objections within the time allotted on 26.05.2006. After the judgment dated 27.04.2006 delivered by the Division Bench of this court, the respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) 18561/2006 wherein on 20.11.2006 the Supreme Court had granted interim stay of the High Court’s order. The said SLP was ultimately dismissed on 21.03.2012.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no fresh notification under section 6 of the said Act has been issued and the mandatory period for issuance of such a notification has long gone by. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the Padmasundara Rao and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others:
2002. (3) SCC533to submit that the in such an eventuality the acquisition proceedings itself should be declared as having lapsed .
4. We had requested the learned counsel for the respondent to bring the relevant file to the court to examine as to whether any notification under section 6 had been issued subsequent to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. On going through the said record, we were unable to find any such notification. This being the position, following the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (supra), since the time for issuing the notification under section 6 has elapsed, the entire acquisition proceedings shall have to be declared as having lapsed.
5. It is ordered accordingly.
6. The petitioner is at liberty to seek the correction of the revenue record.
7. The writ petition is allowed as above. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J OCTOBER28 2014 kb W.P.(C) No.5944/2013