Judgment:
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by several owners of industrial units situated on plots falling within the Jhilmil Industrial Area. The Petitioners have sought a Declaration to the effect that Notification dated 14.10.2005 under Section 4, Declaration under Section 6 dated 15.10.2006, and Notification dated 9.11.2006 under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act for short) in respect of the lands and built-up structures should be struck down for the reason that they are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners have also prayed for compensation and for allotment of alternate plots. The Petitioners have alleged malafides against the Respondents so far as the need behind the acquisition is concerned. Interim Orders directing the parties to maintain status quo were passed on the first date of hearing, have been extended from time to time, and subsist till date.
2. Briefly stated, the Respondents intend and plan to complete the construction of a forty-five metre wide road, Road No. 58, connecting/leading to Road No. 64. If these two roads have to be interconnected they would have to pass under G.T. Road which, at the point of conjunction, is already elevated road or flyover. Prior to this confluence of roads under G.T. Road, Road No. 58 would have to negotiate the Railway Line which, in these environs, runs roughly parallel to G.T. Road. A decision has been taken by the Respondents to construct a road under bridge (RUB) so that the existing Railway Line would not be disturbed. After traversing under the Railway Line, the road would have to cross through the Jhilmil Industrial Area so as eventually to connect with Road No. 64. At the present moment, traffic on Road No. 58 has perforce to travel several kilometres in order to have access to G.T. Road. Traffic having to cross G.T. Road or traverse on the other half of G.T. Road would require to halt in traffic, which would be obviated once Roads 58 and 64 are interconnected. There cannot be two opinions that it is strongly salutary, if not absolutely necessary, for the proposal to be fully implemented. We are firmly of the view that it is in public interest that the project requires to be completed.
3. We have already mentioned that Road No. 58 is presently forty-five metres in width, and stands constructed almost upto the Railway Line. We have been informed, and it has not been controverted, that the construction if the RUB by extant practices has to be carried out by the Railways IRCON). The Project has been held up because of the interim Orders passed by this Court. No useful purpose would be served for the RUB to be constructed unless a passage through the existing Jhilmil Industrial Area is readily available. The Petitioners are the owners of land and structures in the Jhilmil Industrial Area which would perforce be required to be acquired if Road No. 58 is to have a width of forty-five metres eventually connecting it with Road No. 64.
4. As we already indicated above, we are of the opinion that the public purpose element of the acquisition is impervious to challenge. It is essential for the smooth and free flow of traffic in the entire area running into several square miles. Easy access to arterial roads is an urban essentiallity.
5. The submission and argument pertaining to malafides which had actively engaged our attention are briefly two-fold. Even after several hearings in the writ petitions the Respondents had not taken any steps towards acquiring properties and lands contiguous to the existing Road No. 64, which presently is approximately seventy feet in width. It is quite palpable that if Road No. 64 continues to be only seventy feet in width, a bottleneck would come into existence at the confluence of the two Roads hence defeating the very purpose behind the impugned Acquisition. The entire purpose of acquiring the Petitioners' lands, on either side of the proposed extension of Road No. 58, would be defeated. Faced with this predicament Mr. Poddar, Advocate for the LAC and other counsel appearing for the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had explained that Road No. 64 is already forty-five metres/150 feet in width at points further from the existing Mosque/Masjid. Since it is presently approximately seventy feet in width, acquisition of land was essential, and this was proposed to be effected in the second phase. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners had vociferously attacked the bonafides of the Respondents by reference to earlier acquisition proceedings which were dropped on remonstrations received from a local politician and by the Masjid Authorities. In this context our attention has been drawn by learned Counsel for the Petitioners to Notification dated 17.11.1994 published in the Delhi Gazette. We found merit in these misgivings of the Petitioners and accordingly were of the opinion that the reservations and doubts of the Petitioners would be set at rest no sooner Phase-II was given effect to by the Respondents. On July 18, 2007 proceedings were adjourned in order to enable Mr. Poddar to obtain instructions regarding the so-called 'Phase-II' acquisitions. By Notification No.:F.7(13)/02/L&B;/LA/8707 dated 13.9.2007 under Section 4 of the LA Act the intendment to acquire 11 bigha and 5 biswa comprising lands bearing sundry mentioned Khasra Nos. in the Notification has been published.
6. We have now been shown a recommended layout Plan duly signed by Shri Umesh Misra, which we have marked as Exhibit RA. Its perusal shows that Road No. 64 will be roughly in alignment with Road No. 58, being of the same width. This has necessitated the acquisition of a large portion of the existing Mosque and buildings towards the East including that which is owned by the local politician. Commercial properties have also been notified for acquisition on the Southern Side and government properties in these areas have been earmarked for being taken over for the purpose of widening of Road No. 64. When completed, the project will ensure movement of traffic along Road Nos. 58/64 as well as access to the G.T. Road on both its sides, that is, in either direction viz. towards ISBT or towards Ghaziabad.
7. Exhibit RA also depicts that the Mosque is to be relocated. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners had referred to statements allegedly made by Hon'ble the Lieutenant Governor to the effect that the religious structures should not be shifted. However, we have had the advantage of perusing the official records of the Project. The Note of the the Additional Secretary(L&B;) is dated 4.4.2008 which states as follows:
200. For the 1st phase of this project, Section 6 notification for the acquisition of 15 bigha 07 biswa of land was issued on 5.2.2006 (page 137/C) with the approval of Hon'ble L.G. (page 31/N). The land owners have challenged the acquisition by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The Hon'ble High Court had ordered for the maintenance of status quo. As a result of which the possession of the land has not yet been taken. In the writ petition, the land owners have claimed that the Govt. is not sincere in Requisitioning the land for the 2nd phase of the project. The matter has been taken up by the Hon'ble Court many times and the Hon'ble Court has been asking us the status of the acquisition for the 2nd phase of the Project. The case is coming up for hearing in the Court on 04.04.2008.
201. In the 2nd phase of project, total land required to be acquired is 11 bigha 05 biswa for which Section 4 notification was issued on 13.9.2007. The approval of the Hon'ble L.G. is on page 53/N. Out of the 11 bigha 05 biswa of land, only 4 bigha 03 biswa of land is a private land. The remaining land is with the DDA & Delhi Govt. Therefore, only 4 bigha 03 biswa of land is required to be acquired for phase-II project.
202. The LAC has considered the objections under Section 5A and had submitted his report, but has not found merits in the objections and has recommended for the acquisition of the land. However, in this private land, a Mosque is also there which will be affected in land acquisition. The LAC has pointed out that without the acquisition of the Mosque land, the project will not be completed. The LAC has suggested that the Govt, may take a view whether the Mosque land may be acquired or not. As per report of the Chief Engineer (PWD) available on page 173/C, the Mosque land is 151 sq. mtrs. which is approx. 3 biswas.
203. The acquisition of land for the 1st phase of the project, has been linked with the acquisition of the land for the 2nd phase of the project. This is a very important project of the PWD which is for providing missing link and RUB on Road No. 58 which will link Yamuna Vihar Sports Complex ITI Bridge, Vivak Vihar-G.T. Road Swami Daya Nand Hospital GTB Hospital. This is a Master Plan Road. The site plan of both part of the project is available in the file on page 176/C.
204. In view of these facts, it is suggested that the Hon'ble L.G. may be requested to kindly consider the above mentioned facts and approve the issuance of Section 6 notification for 4 bigha 03 biswa of land including the Mosque land. The decision for demolishing the Mosque may, however, be taken subsequently in consultation with the Religious Committee. In this 1st Phase-I of the project also, a Mandir is coming in the way which is proposed to be demolished in consultation with the Religious Committee (PWD Report on page 110/C).
8. The approvajkml of Hon'ble the Lieutenant Governor is available on the file. After due consideration of the Report under Section 5A of the LA Act, Section 6 Notification under the LA Act in the second phase, that is along Road No. 64, has been duly published. We are confident that Phase-II, that is widening of Road No. 64 immediately at its confluence with Road No. 64, shall be carried out in consonance with Exhibit RA.
9. We shall briefly mention some of the arguments on behalf of learned Counsel for the Petitioners, which we see as having been raised in desperation. The argument that the DDA has not granted its approval is without merit. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners had also submitted that if the width of the Roads are reduced to hundred feet, the lands of the Petitioners may be saved. It is not the province of either this Court or of the Petitioners to dictate how the Respondents should carry out public works and road construction/widening even after their objections have been adjudicated. So long as malafides or arbitrariness is absent the Plan of the Respondents should not be faulted or modified. Photographs have also been produced by the Petitioners to show that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) has carried out construction of boundary walls under the G.T. Road Flyover and, therefore, traffic cannot cross under the G.T. Road, that is, through Road No. 58 and Road No. 64. The DMRC has confirmed that these are only temporary structures and can be removed at any stage. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have also contended that because of pillars erected by DMRC on proposed Road No. 58, interconnectivity between it and Road No. 64 is not possible and hence the Project should be treated as having been disbanded. However, we do not find any serious impediment of traffic travelling through Road No. 58 to Road No. 64 and vice versa despite the location of these pillars. The argument is without merit.
10. The only remaining argument to be considered pertains to the allotment of alternate plots/sites to the Petitioners. It is trite that the Petitioners shall be paid compensation at the market value of the land together with solatium as per the provisions of the LA Act including its Section 23. In Ravi Khullar v. Union of India : 2007 V AD (SC) 330 : AIR 2007 SC 2334 the claim of some of the Petitioners whose lands had been acquired, for allotment of alternative site, was turned down by the Court. Their Lordships observed thus:
43. The documents relied upon by the respondents do establish that though at different stages the question of rehabilitation of the affected persons as a result of the acquisition was considered, no firm decision was ever taken to rehabilitate the industries affected thereby. The decision taken was only to provide alternative sites for residence of the oustees from village Nangal Dewat in village Rangpuri. The proposal to allot lands for setting up the displaced industrial units was always turned down and it was decided that owners of such industries would only be entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Having regard to the material on record we are satisfied that no scheme was ever famed for rehabilitation of industrial units. The scheme was framed only for the affected villagers of village Nangal Dewat and that too for residential purpose alone.
44. Learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously urged before us that the land in village Rangpuri is still available and even if the three industries with which we are concerned in the instant batch of appeals are allotted land to the extent of 25,000 sq. yards each, as recommended in the Joint Survey Report, their purpose will be served. We are afraid we cannot accede to the request because that is a matter of policy and it is for the government to take appropriate decision in that regard. In law we find no justification for the claim that even in the absence of a scheme for rehabilitation of displaced industries alternative sites should be allotted to them for relocating the industrial units. It is no doubt true that the acquisition of land in village Rangpuri by issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act on December 23, 1986 was for the public purpose, namely for rehabilitation of the persons displaced or affected due to the expansion/development of the Palam airport. Learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that this public purpose has been achieved and the persons who were displaced from village Nangal Dewat in view of the acquisition of their lands for the development of Palam airport have been allotted plots in village Rangpuri for their residence. There is nothing in the Notification which obliges the State to provide equal alternative site to the industries for the rehabilitation. We find substance in the stand of respondents.
In view of these pronouncements the Petitioners do not enjoy any vested right to claim allotment of alternative plots in lieu of their properties and/or in addition to the compensation receivable by them as a consequence of the acquisition of their properties.
11. For the reasons stated above, we find no further merit in the Petitions. All pending applications are dismissed. Interim Orders are recalled. Writ Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.