c ""·. LILA RAM ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. August 19, 1975 fll. R. KHANNA, V. R. KRISHNA IYElt, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] Land Acquisition Ac;;t, Section 4–Execution of lnterini General Plo.•i for the Greater Delhi', if a public purpose for the purposes of the section. On September 3, 1957 the Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued a notifica· tion under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act fn respect of land measuring about 3)000 acres mentioned in the schedule attached to the notification. It was also stated that the land is Hkely to be required to be taken at the public expense for a public purpo5e, namely, for the execution of the Jnteritn General Plan for the Greater Delhi.
The not.'..tication was published in the Delhi Gazette on September 12, 1957. Large tracts of land belonging to the appellant and situated in villages Garhi J aharia Maria and Zamurdupur were covered by the above notification.
Declaration dated February 15, 1961 under section 6 of the Act in respect of the land of the appellant and some other lands covered by the above notification was published on February 23, 1961.
On or about February 24, 1961 the appellant filed petit1on under article 226 of the Constitu· tion chaUenging the validity of the notification under section 4 Qf the Act on various grounds. It was argued on behalf of the appellant in the High Court that the acquisition. of the land was not for a public purpose. that the so·called public purpose was merely a colourable device for freez~.ng huge areas of land and that there· could not be successive declarations under section 6 of the Act in respect of the lands covered by one notification under section 4 of the Act. The High Court rejected the contentions and dismissed the writ petition. Dism~ssing the appeal.
HELD : ( 1) The public purpose mentioned in the notification, nameJy. for the execution of the Interim General Plan for the Greater Delhi, is specific in the circumstances and does not suffer from any vagueness. The land covered by the notification is not a small plot, but a huge area covering thousands of acres. In such cases !t is difficult to insist upon greater precision for specifying the public purpose because it is quite possible that various plots covered by the
notification may have to be utilised. for different purposes set out in the Interim General Plan. No objection was also taken by the appellant before the autho- rities that the public purpose
ment:oned in the notification was not specific enough and as such he was not able to file effective objections against the proposed acquisition. [343F-H, 344A] Mrmsln' Singh & Ors. v. Union df India [1973] I S.C.R. 973; Aflatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Ors. A.LR. rt9741 S.C. 2077 and Ratni Devi v. Chief Conunissi'oner W.P. Nos. 332 and 333 of 1971 decided on April 13, 1975, referred to. (ii) The Interim General Plan was prepared and published by the Govern- ment after aoproval by the Cabinet as a oolicy decision for development of
Delhi as an interim measure till a 1\'1aster Plan could be made ready. In Afla· toon case this Court laid down that the planned development of Delhi was a oublic purpose for the purpose of sect'.on 4 of the Act.
As the object of the Interim General Plan was to prev~nt haphazard arid unplanned development of Delhi and therebv ensure planned development of Delhi the execution of th~ Interim General Plan must be held to be a public purpOse for the purpose of section 4 of the Act.
[3440-H. 345A] (iii) It is tn1e the effect of the notification under section 4 of the Act was to freeze the land, but that fact would not in any way affect the valid!.ty of the notification.
The obiect of a notification under section 4 is to give public notice that it is proposed to acquire the land mentioned in the notification and that any one who deals in that land subseauent to the notification would do so at his own risk.
According to section 23 of the Act, in determining the amount of compensat:on to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration, besides other factors. the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4. It is further pro~
vided in section 24 of the Act that the Court shall not take into consideration any outlay or improvement 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 under section 4. It is, therefore, obvious that the consequences of the "'freezing of the land" is inherent in the nature of things once the notification under section 4 is issued.
[345B-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 35 and 989 of 1968. From the Judgment and Order dated the 8th May, 1964 of the c Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Writ Nos. 76-D of 1961 and 604-D of 1962 respectively.
B. R. L. Iyengar, K. P. Gupta, for the Appellants in C.A. No. 35 of 1968. L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, S. N. Prasad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents in C.A. No. 35 of 1968.
Hardayal Hardy, P. C. Bhartari and J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for the appellants in C.A." No. 989 of 1968. L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, S. N. Prasad and S. P. Nayar, the Respondents in C.A. No. 989 of 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J.-This judgment would dispose of civil appeals No. 35 and 989 of 1968 which have been filed on certificate against the common judgment of the Punjab High Court whereby petitions under article 226 of the Cqnstitution filed by the appeilants and . others challenging the validity of the land acquisition proceedings were dis- missed.
We may now set out the facts giving rise to appeal No. 35. On September 3, 1957 the Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued a notifi- cation under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter refer- red t? as the Act) in respect of the land measuring about 3,000 acres mentioned in the schedule attached to the notificatiorr.
The material part of the notification re~ds as under : "Whereas it appears to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi that land is likely t_o be required to be taken at the public expense for a pub!Ic purpose namely for the execution of
the. Interim General Plan for. the Greater Delhi, it is hereby notified that the land descnbed in the Schedule below is likely to be required for the above purpose." j 7– c LILA RAM v. UNION (Khanna, J.)
343' The notification was published in the Delhi Gazette on Septem~r 12, 1957. Large tracts of land belonging to the appellant and situated in villages Grahi J aharia Maria and Zamurdupur were covered by the above notification.
Declaration dated February- 15, under section 6 of the Act in respect of the land of the appellant and some other lands covered ·by the above notification was published on February 23, 1961. On or about February 24, 1961 the appellant liled petition under article 226 of th~ Constitution challenging . the validity of the notification under section 4 of the Act on var1?us grounds, to which reference would be ~ade hereafter. . The Uru?n of India, the Delhi Development Authority and the Chief Comm1~ sioner were impleaded as respondents in the petition and
affidavit was filed on their behalf by Shri K. L. Rathee, Housing Commissioner, Delhi Administration in opposition to the petition. It was argued on behalf of the appellant in the High Court that the acquisition of the land was ·not for a public purpose, that the so- called public purpose was merely a colourable device for freezing huge areas of land and that there could !110t .be successive declaration under section 6 of the Act in respect of the lands covered by one notification under section 4 of the Act.
A Division Bench of the High Court consisting of Falshaw, C.J. and Mei)ar Singh, J. (as he then was) repelled the various contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants and in the result dismissed the writ petitions. Mr. Iyengar on behalf of the appellant has at the outset contend- ed before us that the so-called public purpose, namely, "for the exe- · cution of the Interim General· Plan for the Greater Delhi" is vague and as such the notification is liable to be qnashed. Reliance in
this context has been placed by the learned counsel upon the case of Munshi Singh and Ors. v. Union of inala('). In this conection we find that the judgment of the High Court shows that the appellant did not challenge the notification in question or the acquisition proceed- ''.1gs on the ground that the public purpose mentionei:I in the notifica- tion was vag~e. As. such, the appellant, in our opinion, cannot be allowed to agitate this question for the first time in appeal. Apart
from t~at, ".'e are of the view that the public purpose mentioned irr the notification. namelv, for the execution of the lnterm Generol Plan for the Greater Delhi, is specific in the circumstances and does not suffer f.rom .any. vagueriess. It is significant that the land covered by the notificat10n is not a small plot but a hnge area covering thousands of acres: .In such cas~s it is difficult to insist upon greater precision for. spec1fymg the pub!tc purpose because it is quite possible that v':1'1ous plots covered by the notification may have to be utilised for different purposes set out in the Interim General Plan.
No objection ~as also. taken by the ai:pellant before the authorities concerned that t e public nurpose ment10ned in the notification was not specific enough and as su~h. ~e was not able to file effective objections a ainst the propose.ct acqu1s1tion. In the case of Munshi Singh a'1id Ors. (s~pra) t.he complaint of. the appellant was that he was unable to object effec- tivelv under sectiou SA of the Act to the proposed acquisition. The (I) [1973] I S.C.R. 97,,
[1976) l S.C.R. appellant in that case in that context referred to the fact that a scheme ot planned development was not mijde available .to him in spite of his. application. As against that, as already mentioned, no objection was taken by the appellant that because of alleged vagueness of the public purpose he was not able to file any effective objection under section 5A of the Act.
The case of Munshi Sii1gh, it may also be pointed out, was considered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Afiatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of De(hi and Ors.(') .and it was observed that in the case of acquisition of a large area of land comprising several plots belonging to different persons, the spe- dfication of the purpose can only be with reference to the acquisition of the whole area. Unlike in the case of acquisition of a small area, it might practically be difficult to specify the particular public purpose for which each and every item of land comprised in the area is needed. This Court in that case upheld the validity of the notification for the :acquisition of land for "the planned development ·of Delhi". In a sub- ·sequent unreportetl case Ratni Devi v. Chief Commissioner(') this
•Court reiterated after referring to Aflatoon's case that acquisition of land for the plan~ development of Delhi was for a public purpose. There is also no force in the submission made on behalf of the :appellant that the execution of the Interim General Plan is not a pub- .Jic purpose.
The affidavit of Shri Rathee shows that consequent upon the increase in the population or Delhi after the partition of the coun- try the Ce,ntral Goyernment decided that a single planning and develop- ment authority should be ret up to deal with the land and housing problems in Delhi.
As the constituti011 of such a body would have taken some time and as none of the existing authorities had the neces- ·sarv power to check, control or regulate buildin~ acti\ities which were rapidly creating slum conditions ill the city, the Delhi (Control of Buil- ·ding Operations) Ordinance 1955 was promulgated on October 22, 1955.
The Delhi Development (Provisional) Authority was consti- tuted under the provisions of the Ordinance to prevent unplanned and haphazard deve!Opment and constructions. The ordinance was later
on superseded by the Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Act, 1955. Simultaneously the Town Planning Organisation was set up in November 1955 to to draw up a Master Plan for Delhi. In September 1956 this organization submitted an Interim General Plan which was considered by the Central Cabinet in October 1956 and was approved subject to such variations, as might be found necessary on further exami- nations. It will thus be seen that the Interim General Plan was prepared and published by the Govefnrnent after approval by the Cabinet as a policy decision for development of Delhi as an interim meas.ure. till a Master Plan could be made ready. We have already referred to the case of Aflatoon wherein this Court laid down that the planned development of Delhi was a public purpose for the purpose of section 4 of the Act. As the obiect of the Interim General Plan was to prevent haphazard and unplanned development of Delhi and thereby to ensure planned de- (1) A.!. R. 1974 S. C. 2077.
(2) WP. Nos. 332 and 333of1971 ddded on April 13, 1975. c ( ,. c LILA RAM v. UNION (Khanna, /,) 34& veloptnent of Delhi, the execution of the Interim G~neral Plan must be held to be a public parpose for the purpose of section 4 of the Act. Equally devoid of force is the submission that the proceedings for: the acquisitio11 of land are liable to be struck down '?n the ground' that the notification ;under sect10n 4 of the Act was issued for the collateral purpose of freezing tile land of the appellant. As already
stated above, the public purpose mentioned in the n_otification under: section 4 of the Act was the execut10n of the lnterun Ge,neral Plan; for the Greater Delhi. It is true that the effect of the notification under section 4 of the Act was to freeo:e the land, but that fact would not in. any way affect the validity of the notification. The object of a noti- ficatio11 under sectio,n 4 is to give public notice that it is proposed to' acquire the land mentioned in the notification and that any one who deals in that land subsequent to the notification would do so at his own risk..
Accortiing to section 23 of the Act, in determining the amount of compensatioi:l to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the· Court shall take into consideration, besides other factors, the market- vailue of the land at the date of the publication of the 11otification under section 4. It is further provided in section 24 of the Act that the court shall not take into consideratio11 any outlay or improve-· ments 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 under section 41.
It is, therefore, ob-. vious that the consequence of the "freezing of the land" about which· complaint has been made by the appellant is inherent in the nature· of things once a notification under section 4 is issued.
Reference has also beeq made by Mr. Iyengar to the fact that the lands of some others which were also earlier proposed to be acquired under the notification were subsequently ordered not to be· acquired.
This fact too, in our opinion, would not militate against the validity of the acqnisition of the land of the appellant. Accordc ing to section SA of the Act, any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being need– ed or likely to be needed for a pnblic purpose or for a
Company may, within thirty days after the issue of the notification,. object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. The objector is then given opportunity of being· heard and thereafter a report is submitted to the appropriate Govern- ment by the Collector containing his recommendations on the objec-. tions. It is for the appropriate Government thereafter to take the decision on the objections. There is, therefore, no inherent infirmity in· the decision of the Government in accepting some of tlhe objections and rejecting others.
The- question as to what factors weighed with· the authorities concerned in deciding not to aequire the land of others need not be gone irtto in these proceedings because that would not in any way affect the validity of the acquisition of the land of the- appell~nt.
CTvil Aptieal No. 989 of 1968 has· been filed by the Birla Cotton· Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd, in connection with the acquisition of its land' .346 .measuring 9 bighas 1 biswas sit_uated in village Ada Chi~. Notifica- .tion under sectio,n 4 of the Act m respect of the appellants land was issued on November 13 1959. Declaration under section 6 of the .Act was issued on May' 14, 1962. Various grounds were urged be- .fore the High Court on behalf of the appellant challenging the vali- dity of the acquisition of its land. We are not, howeyer, concerned •With them all as Mr. Hardy on behalf of the appellant 10 this appeal has advam:ed only one contention. According to the learn~ cou,nsel, .no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant of being heard .after the appellant had filed objections under sectiol!- 5A of the Act to the acquisition of the land.
Clanse (2) of section 5A reads as .under : "(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to .the Collector in writing, and the Collector shal_l give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in
person or by pleader and shall after hearing all such objec- tions and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, contain~ng his recom- mendations en the objections, together with the record of
the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Go- vernment. The decision of the appropriate Government shall be fi.nal." .After notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on November 13, 1959 the appellant company filed objections on December 12.
1959. lntimation was thereupon given to the appellant that the ob- ·jections ·were fixed for hearing i,n fhe office of the Collector on May '9, 1961. According to the case of the respondents, no one repre-
·senting the apI>Cllant company appeared on the date of hearing. The High Conrt apparently accepted this stand and in this context ob- ·served that no affidavit of the person who was alleged to have been present on behalf of the appellant on May 9, 1961 had been filed. In any case, the learned Judges had no doubt that the objections submitted by the appellant were considered along with the objections ·of other interested persons before the decision was taken to go ahead ·with aeqnisition proceedings.
. At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Hardy has referred to judgment ·dated May 15, 1972 ~f the Delhi High Court in a case filed by the appellant company against the respondents relating to the acquisition ·of some other land of the appellant.
In that case a number of affi- ·davits were filed and on consideration of those affidavits as well as the fact fhat the respondents had not been able to prodnce the rele- vant file before the High Court, the High Court inferred that a re- presentative of the appellant hall actually appeared before the Collector on May 9, 1961 when objectiqns relating. to the acqnisition of the •Other land were taken up.
The finding of fhe Delhi High Court in c l c LILA RAM v. UNION (Khanna, /.) the other case cannot, in our opinion, be of much avail to the appel- . !ant because we are unable to rely upon that findini: for c01ning to the conclusio.n that a representative of the appellant actually appeared before the Collector in support of the objections relating to the acqui- sition of the land il'l dispute in the present case.
The present case has to be decided upon the material brought on the record in this case. As already observed above, no affidavit of the person who was alleged to have appeared on behalf of the appellant before the Collector in the proceedings with which we are concerned was filed. There is also nothing to rule out the possibility of a person deputed to attend the hearings of two different cases fixed for the same date in a court awearing in only one of them and not beirlg present when the second case is called.
The relevant file was sent for at the instanee of the appellant company and was produced before us. It contains the written representation of the appellant. We find no indication there- in that a representative of the appellant was actually present before the Collector on May 9, 1961. The report of the· Collector shows that he considered objections of a ,number of other parties who were present before him and sent his recommendations about the lands of those objectors. As regards t]1e lands upon which nothing had been built, the recommendation was that the objections of the objectors be ignored.
The appellant's lal:\d belonged to the last mentioned cate- gory. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no force in the contention that opportunity was not afforded to the appellant of being heard before the Collector made his report to the appropriate Go- vernment with his recommendations on the objections under clause (2) of section SA of the Act.
As a result of the above, both the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs one hearing fee. V.M.K. Appeals dismissed.