ivil Appeal Nos
992997 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 308
1988 of the Allahabad High Court in WP Nos
12572 of 1984
651285 1257484 17966180
1215284 and 12159 of 1984
KK Venugopal SN Misra Rajinder Sachhar Soli J Sorabjee VM Tarkunde SS Ray OP Rana Govind Muk hoti PC Kapur BP Sahu PN Misra Krishna Pd BP Singh AK Goel
JM Khanna Ms Shafali Khanna section Mar kandeya Ashok Sharma GS Gift Rao Mrs C Markandeya WA Nomani G Seshagiri SK Mehta Aman Vachher Atul Nanda ND Tyagi Raju Ramachandran D Pillai Raja Ram Agarwal Sanjay Parekh SN Mira and AK Goel for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
We have heard counsel for the par ties at considerable length but piece meal spread over a number of days
Special Leave granted 205 Five cooperative societies with membership of Government servants mostly of  the lower strata filed six separate writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court challenging the Notification under section 41 and section 171 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 on several grounds
The principal contentions before the High Court were two fold 1 the cooperative societies consisting Of the low paid Government servants having acquired the land for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to their members the Ghaziabad Development Authority constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the same purpose should not have been permitted to acquire the said land to their prejudice and 2 there was no justification for depriving the petitioners of their right to representation under section 5A of the Acquisition Act in the facts and circumstances of the case
The High Court by a common judgment dated 30th August 1988 dismissed the writ petitions by negativing the several contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners
It may be pointed out that on behalf of the Neelam Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd two writ petitions were filed while each of the other four societies had filed one writ petition
That is how six Special Leave Petitions were filed before this Court and have now been converted into appeals on grant of leave
Ghaziabad within the State of Uttar Pradesh virtually bordering Delhi is located at a distance of 28 kilometers from the New Delhi Railway Station in the trans Jamuna area
It has of late become apart from being a Railway junction
an industrial area as also an agglomeration sufficiently developed to call it a township
A Master Plan has been drawn up for the area and some portions have been developed while the lands of the five cooperative societies have not yet been improved on account of the pendency of this group of cases
In course of the hearing of these appeals we were satis fied about the genuineness of the grievance advanced on behalf of the members through their respective cooperative societies and took the view that the members of the coopera tive societies should not be denied residential accommoda tion for which they had taken effective steps before the acquisition for the Development authority was notified
We took into consideration the total number of members as also the number of eligible members the total area which the members had acquired and entrusted to the cooperative socie ties for construction the capacity of the members to pay for the construction now charged by the Development authori ty the need of planned development of the area
 and all other relevant facts and circumstances placed by all the parties before 206 us and formed the opinion that it would be sufficient to meet the requirement of members of these societies if each one of them was provided with a plot limited to an area of 80 square yards
Total members entitled to allotment are 1739
Whether it should be individual plots or double storeyed construction should be permitted was seriously debated before us but we have come to the ultimate conclusion that instead of single storey construction double storey constructions would be convenient and economical
The interest of the members represented by their respective cooperative societies and the nature of the housing complex contemplated by the Devel opment authority have to be kept in view and the ultimate decision keeping the interest of both has to be taken
Counsel for the Development authority had canvassed before us that instead of confining construction of flats to two storeys the normal pattern of five or six storeys could be adopted
High rise construction for the poor section of the society would not be convenient in old age many would have movement problem many of the necessities for living would be difficult to secure
We have therefore decided that the construction must be confined to two storeys only and the members of their respective societies shall make their own adjustment of the ground floor and 1st floor allotments
About 20 acres of land would be necessary if the double storey construction with an area of 80 square yards is adopted
Society wise particulars are provided below section No Name of cooperative Total members Area society entitled to in acres allotment 1
Sarkari Karamchari Evam 230 254 Mitregan Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd 2
Kendriya Karamchari Evam 523 577 Mitregan Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd 3
Ghaziabad Shiromani 298 329 Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd 4
Neelain Sahakari Awas 245 270 Samiti Ltd 207 5
Asha Pushpa Vihar Sahakari 443 487 Awas Samiti Ltd 1739 1917 Members entitled 1739 Total area 1917 acres rounded to 20 acres This area of 20 acres is inclusive of land for laying of the roads and other requirements contemplated under the development scheme
For convenience and adjustment we are of the view that two more acres of land be made available to the five cooperative societies to be shared by amicable adjustment by them
Thus from the acquisition Notification 22 acres of land shall stand deleted and shall be released in accordance with the extent indicated for each of the five cooperative societies
The identification of the land to be so released shall be made within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of the order by mutual arrangement
We direct that when the land shall be so identified the order of release from acquisition by appropriate description of the land shall be made sketch maps showing the identified land shall also be signed by parties to avoid future litigation and made over to each of the societies
We commend that all the five cooperative societies may form themselves into a federation for the purpose of ensur ing appropriate development of the area and sharing either in common or by division the 283 acres of extra land which is directed to be released from acquisition
It has been agreed that development charges for sewer age electricity road connections and the like shall be provided by the Development authority  Rs 100 per square yards and internal development shall be done by the socie ties themselves
In raising the construction the bye laws and regulations of the Development authority shall be strictly followed
We hope and trust that the Development authority shall extend its cooperation in every manner to the societies to effectuate the directions made by us
We look forward to the fulfillment of the dreams of each of the members of the society in the matter of having a residential accommodation
208 As soon as the lands are identified and sketch maps are delivered as directed above the interim orders made by this Court shall stand dissolved
The appeals are disposed of without any order for costs
PSS Appeals allowed


Summary:
Mr Kubic Dariusz a Polish national was arrested on 29489 by the Customs Department on the ground that he was in possession of foreign gold weighing about 70 tolas
On 30489 he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who remanded him to jail custody till 15th May 89
His bail application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
While still in custody he was served with the impugned Detention Order dated 16589 under the COFEPOSA Act along with the grounds of detention
On 24589 he was granted bail by the Calcutta High Court but the same could not be availed of because of the detention order which the peti tioner challenged by preferring the Writ Petition before this Court
The detention order is assailed on two grounds namely that the detenu did not know English wherefore he was unable to read and be informed of the grounds of detention to enable him to defend himself and secondly that the represen tation submitted by him through the Superintendent of Jail to Central Advisory Board COFEPOSA was neither considered nor acted upon or replied to at all by the detaining author ity wherefore the detention order was liable to be quashed as violative of Article 225 of the Constitution of India
On behalf of the respondent it is contended that the detenu was 99 conversant with the English language as would appear from his replies to the questions put to him in the course of interrogation
Hence there was no question of furnishing the grounds to him in Polish language
Refuting the second contention it was stated that after hearing the detenu the Advisory Board found sufficient cause for his detention
It was also urged by the respondent that the so called repre sentation of the detenu dated 13689 was not a representa tion to the appropriate Govt
against the detention and could not be treated as such
Allowing the Writ Petition and setting at liberty the detenu this Court HELD Continued detention of the detenu has been ren dered illegal by non consideration of his representation by the appropriate government according to law resulting in violation of Article 225 of the Constitution of India
114F Where the grounds are couched in a language which was not known to the detenu unless the contents of the grounds were fully explained and translated to the detenu it would tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention and would thus vitiate the detention ex facie
It is the settled law that the detention order the grounds of detention and the documents referred to and relied upon are to be communicated to the detenu in a language understood by him so that he can make effective representation against his detention
To ascertain whether the detenu knew the language in which the grounds were served or was reigning ignorance it is open to Court to consider the circumstances and facts of the case
The detenu is not required to write an essay or pass any language test
A working knowledge of English enabling him to understand the grounds would be enough for making a representation
He could very well send his representation in the language known by him
103G 106E H 107A E No hesitation there is in the instant case in holding that the detenu understood the English Language had the working knowledge of it and was reigning ignorance of it
109E Though the representation was addressed to the Chairman Central Advisory Board the same was forwarded by the Jail authorities and it must be taken to have been a representa tion to the appropriate government which was to consider it before placing it before the Advisory Board and the same having been not done Article 225 of the Constitution has to be held to have been violated
Delay in disposing of 100 the representation when inordinate and unexplained the detention would be rendered bad and the detenu must be ordered to be released forthwith
111A B 110E Preventive detention of a foreign national who is not resident of the country involved an element of international law and human rights and the appropriate authorities ought not to be seen to have been oblivious of the international obligation in this regard
The universal declaration of human rights include the right to life liberty and security of person freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention the right to fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal and the right to presume to be innocent until proved guilty
112G H 113A When an act of preventive detention involves a foreign national though from the national point of view the munici pal law alone counts in its application and interpretation it is generally a recognised principle in national legal system that in the event of doubt the national rule is to be interpreted in accordance with the States  international obligations
113A B The fundamental rights guaranteed under our Constitution are in conforming line with those in the Declaration and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant Economic Social and Cultural Rights to which India has become a party by ratifying them
Crimen Trahit personam
The crime carries the person
Smuggling may not be regarded as such a crime
113C D There may therefore be cases where while a citizen and resident of the country deserves preventive detention apart from criminal prosecution in the case of a foreign national not resident of the country he may not be justifiably sub jected to preventive detention in the event of which no international legal assistance is possible unlike in cases of criminal prosecution and punishment
114D E Harikisan vs The State of Maharashtra 1962 2 Suppl
SCR 918 Razia Umar Bakshi vs Union of India  Nainmal Partap Mal Shah vs Union of India  Surjeet Singh vs Union of India   Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs Union of India  Ors   Hadibandhu Das vs District Magistrate   brahim Ahmad Batti vs State of Gujarat   Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner and Secretary Government of Kerala  Ors   Smt
Shalini Soni vs Union of India   John Martin vs State of West 101 Bengal   Chandroo Kundan vs Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1123 Pabitra N Rana vs Union of India   Saleh Mohammed vs Union of India  Kamla Kanyalal Khushalani vs State of Maharashtra   Rattan Singh vs State of Punjab  Ors   Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs Union of India  Ors 1981 2 SCC 426 Santosh Anand s case  B Sundar Rao  Ors
vs State of Orissa  Vimalchand Jawantraj Jain vs Shri Pradhan  Ors   Jolly George Verghese vs The Bank of Cochin  and Rex vs Halliday  referred to