AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mukul Mudgal, J.
CM No. 4610/04 (delay in filing RP 164/04 and CM 793/006 (delay in filing RP 32/2006)
Heard. The delay in filing the review petitions is condoned. The applications stand disposed of accordingly.
RP Nos. 164/2004 & 32/2006
These review petitions filed by the respondent DDA seek review of the judgment dated 26th July, 2002. The case of the review petitioner/DDA is that the acquisition proceedings were held to be lapsed on the basis of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 14th December, 1994 and upon the application of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 26th July, 2002, of which review is sought reads as follows:
This specific case as aforementioned has been set up by the petitioners in the writ petition and on that basis directions have been sought as follows:
a) issue a writ of mandamus of certiorari or any other writ or directions or orders quashing the Award No. 6B/Supp/81-82 in respect of this land bearing Khasra No. 236 min measuring (3-18) 711/238 ( )-18) 659/256 (3-8) total 8 bighas 4 biswa situated in village Jasola, Union Territory of Delhi;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus of prohibition, the respondents in built land in peaceful project enjoyment of the total of the land stated above.
Affidavit in reply has been filed only on behalf of DDA wherein the fact that the stay order was vacated by the Supreme Court by order annexure II is not disputed. It is no where stated in the petition that there was any other stay in operation by any court or authority staying the acquisition proceedings. As such the fact stands admitted that the impugned award was not made with the period as limited by Section 11-A of the Act. Award was made after more than three years and nine months of the vacation of stay by which date proceedings already stood lapsed. The Collector had no authority or justification to make an award in such proceedings. As such there is no other option in this petition except to allow the same and to quash the award No. 6B/Supplementary/81-82 dated 31.10.1998 qua the petitioners land bearing Khasra No. 236 min (3-18), 711/238(0-18) and 659/256 (3-8) situated in village Jasola, Delhi holding that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed on 14.12.1994. Ordered accordingly.
The fate of the entire review petitions depends upon the interpretation of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 14th December, 1994 which was based on an earlier order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 23rd November, 1994. The relevant portion of order dated 23rd November, 1994 reads as follows:
OKHLA PUMPING STATION A part of the land which has already been acquired and allotted to the MCD is under stay orders issued by various courts. We direct the D.D.A. To issue notices through newspapers consecutively for two days in Hindi and English Dailies stating therein that the persons who have obtained stay orders from various courts be present in this Court at 2.00 p.m. On December 14, 1994. The notices would further state that the owners shall show cause to this Court on the date of hearing as to why stay in their favour be not vacated.
List this matter on 28.11.94.
Pursuant to the above order dated 23rd November, 1994, DDA/ review petitioner herein published a notice dated 23rd November, 1994, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LANDS MANAGEMENT DEPTT. A BLOCK VIKAS SADAN : NEW DELHI
PUBLIC NOTICE
IN THE MATTER OF : IA NO. 21 OF 1994 IN CIVIL WRIT NO. 4677/1985
Shri M.C. MEHTA... PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS... RESPONDENTS
STATEMENT OF LAND OF VILLAGE JASOLA UNDER STAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. No. CWP No. Name of parties Khasra No. Area 1. 2. 3. 2140/03 Sh. Hari Ram and Ors. 132/min 0-5 vs. UOI and Ors. 721/255 2-10 722/255 2-9 OWNERS/OCCUPIERS/ANY PERSON interested in lands mentioned above make take notice:
That the above described land is proposed to be allotted to M.C.D. for setting up an Sewerage Treatment Plant. The above mentioned persons have obtained injunction/stay orders from High Court of Delhi against the acquisition of the said land.
The DDA has approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above matter for vacating the injunctions/stay orders so as to enable it to take possession of the land and allot it to the MCD. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the said application would be heard by the Hon''ble Supreme court on 14.12.94 at 2.00 P.M.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court has directed that person interested in the said lands may appear in person or through Counsel on the above said date and time and show cause why the stay orders should not be vacated.
The learned Counsel for the parties appeared pursuant to the above notice in the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 14th December, 1994 and the following order was passed in so far as the Okhla Pumping Station is concerned:
OKHLA PUMPING STATION We directed the D.D.A. to issue notices through Newspapers consecutively for two days stating therein that the persons who have obtained stay orders from various courts be present in this Court at 2.00 p.m. on December 14, 1994. The notices were published by D.D.A. as directed by us. In response to the notices, Mr. S.M. Ashri, Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Mr. Mahinder Singh and Mr. L.C. Chechi, Advocates are present on behalf of the land owners. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for various land owners is that the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 were issued in the year 1964 and 1966 respectively. According to them, the possession of the land is still with them. It is further stated by the learned Counsel that they are entitled to compensation at the rate of market value of the land today.
This precise question though on somewhat different facts came before this Court in Ram Chand and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. JT 1993 (5) 465. This court declined to quash the acquisition proceedings but awarded additional compensation to the land owners. In Ram Chand''s case the possession in most of the cases had been taken over from the land owners whereas in the present case, the possession of the land is still with the land owners, may be because of the stay granted by various courts. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct that 13 writ petitions mentioned in the public notice published in the Hindustan Times dated November 30, 1994, be transferred from Delhi High Court to the file of this Court. These petitions be listed for final disposal in 2nd week of February, 1995.
Meanwhile, we vacate the stay orders granted by the High Court in all these writ petitions and direct the Delhi Administration to take over the possession of land and hand over to the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking. We make it clear that the possession of only those Khasra numbers which are mentioned in the public notice be taken over from the land owners.
The learned Counsel for the review petitioner/DDA has submitted that vacation of the above stay orders of the High Court by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 14th December 1994 has been clearly confined to those Khasra numbers which were published in the notice as is evident from the notices published on the directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 23rd November 2004. The order dated 14th December 1994 only directed to hand over possession of such advertised khasra numbers. Accordingly, it is submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court of which review has been sought had to be confined to khasra numbers 132/min, 721/255 and 722/255. It is, therefore, submitted that in so far as the judgment pertains to any other khasra numbers save khasra numbers 132/min, 721/255 and 722/255, the judgment of this Court dated 26th July 2002 discloses an error apparent on the face of the record.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner who is the respondent in the review petition, has contended that the averments in the review petitions tantamount to appreciation of documents which were available for consideration on the earlier occasion and as per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others, , a review could not be based on appreciation of fresh documents though forming part of the record were not considered. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
In the present case both the grounds on which the review was allowed were hardly grounds for review. That the two documents which were part of the record were not considered by the Court at the time of issue of writ under Article 226 cannot be a ground for review especially when the two documents were not even relied upon by the parties in the affidavits filed before the Court in the proceedings under Article 226. Again that several instead of one writ petition should have been filed is a mere question of procedure which certainly would not justify a review. We are, therefore, of the view that the Judicial Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in allowing the review. The order of the Judicial Commissioner dated December 7, 1967 is accordingly set aside and the order dated May 25, 1965, is restored. The appeal is allowed but without costs.
The above judgment, in our view, is inapplicable as we are not considering fresh documents but merely taking into account the effect of the two orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 23rd November 1994 which directed the advertisement dated 29th November 1994 and the subsequent order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 14th December 1994.
Having considered the effect of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 23rd November, 1994 as amplified by the advertisement dated 29th November, 1994, which confined it to three khasra numbers 132/min, 721/255 and 722/255 and the fact that the order dated 14th December, 1994 which form the foundation of the judgment of this Court dated 26th July, 2002, clearly confined it to those khasra numbers which were advertised by the DDA. We are of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 26th July, 2002 in so far as it pertains to Khasra Nos. 236 min measuring (3-18), 711/238 ( )-18) and 659/256 (3-8), which are other than the khasra numbers 132/min, 721/255 and 722/255 discloses an error apparent in interpreting the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 14th December, 1994 read with advertisement dated 29th November, 1994 and read with order dated 23rd November, 1994 passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, the review petitions are allowed. The order dated 26th July, 2002 stands reviewed and the writ petition No. 1830/1999 is restored for fresh hearing. List the writ petition before appropriate Bench as per roster on 10th March, 2008 for directions.