Case: Ravi Khullar  Vs. Union Of India


Decision:
0[ds]15. We are of the view that the High Court was justified in rejecting this contention. As noticed by it, the Notification under Section 4 was issued on January 23, 1965. The public purpose for which the acquisition was made was stated to be "planned development of Delhi". Admittedly at the relevant time when Section 4 Notification was published, the management of the airport vested with the Department of Civil Aviation. It cannot be denied that the words used in the Notification, namely "the planned development of Delhi" are wide enough to include the expansion and development of the airport. That is also a "public purpose." Since the IAAI came into existence much later only on December 8, 1971 and was vested with the power to manage the airports, there was no question of the acquisition being made for the purpose of the IAAI since that body did not exist in the year 1965. The acquisition was for the planned development of Delhi and, as observed earlier, the expansion and modification of the airport is a "public purpose". It so happened that after the constitution of the IAAI, the power of management of airports, was vested in it and, therefore, the development work which otherwise would have been undertaken by the concerned competent authority in the year 1965, was to be executed by the IAAI. The submission that the provisions ofof the Act were not complied with must, therefore, be rejected because the acquisition purported to be for the planned development of Delhi and it is no ones case that the Notification had been issued mala fide. The procedure laid down inof the Act was not attracted since the acquisition was not for any "Company" within the meaning ofof the Act.16.The High Courthas also rejected the submission on the ground that it was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this issue, in view of our earlier finding, but the appellants have themselves drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the land was being acquired for the purpose of the IAAI as was evident from the Resolution of the Delhi Development Authority dated September 10, 1981. The appellants, therefore, admit that they had knowledge of the fact that the land was to be utilized by the IAAI for its own purposes, which according to the appellants, was not a part of the planned development of Delhi. Such being the factual position, the father of the appellants who filed Writ Petition No.1550 of 1983 ought to have challenged the acquisition on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act since all the relevant facts were within his knowledge. He not having done so, we do not find that the High Court was in error in holding that the writ petition was barred also by the principle of constructive res judicata.Thus it cannot be said that the land is actually being utilized for any purpose other than that for which it was acquired. The only difference is that whereas initially the development work would have been undertaken by the D.D.A. or any other agency employed by it, after the constitution of the IAAI, the said development work had to be undertaken by the newly constituted authority. Thus there has been no change of purpose of the acquisition. All that has happened is that the development work is undertaken by another agency since constituted, which is entrusted with the special task of maintenance of airports. Since the said authority was constituted several years after the issuance of the Notification under Sections 4, the acquisition cannot be invalidated only on the ground that the public purpose is sought to be achieved through another agency. This, as we have noticed earlier, was necessitated by change of circumstances in view of the creation of the authority i.e. IAAI. Moreover since there is no change of public purpose for which the acquired land is being utilized, the acquisition cannot be invalidated on that ground. The purpose for which the lands are being utilized by a governmental agency is also a public purpose and as we have noticed earlier, would come within the ambit of the public purpose declared in Section 4 Notification.29. Therefore, the acquisition cannot be challenged on the ground that the acquired lands are not being utilized for the declared public purpose. Having regard to the facts of the case it cannot be contended, nor has it been contended, that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued mala fide.30. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.6093 of 2003 and the same is accordingly dismissed.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 framed 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.52. 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.53. 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 their rehabilitation. We find substance in the stand of respondents.CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP NO. 6095 of 200354. In this appeal apart from other questions which have been raised in this batch of appeals, a question of limitation has been raised. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the award made by the Collector in the instant case was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Act inasmuch as it was not made within a period of 2 years from the date of the publication of the declaration after excluding the period during which an order of stay granted by the High Court operated. The facts are not in dispute and since this plea became available to the appellant only after the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, we permitted the appellant to raise this plea after giving an opportunity to the respondents to reply to the same. Since the facts are not in dispute, we proceed to decide the question of limitation in this appeal.55. It is not in dispute that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on January 23, 1965. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on December 26, 1968. The appellant filed the writ petition before the High Court on September 12, 1986 in which an order for maintenance of status quo was made on September 18, 1986. It is the case of the respondents that in view of the status quo order the award could not be pronounced. While the awards were pronounced in other cases on September 19, 1986, it was not pronounced in the case of the appellant in view of the status quo order.The High Courtby the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on February 13, 2003 where after the award was pronounced on March 1, 2003.56. We may notice that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into force w.e.f. September 24, 1984.In our view the principle laid down in this judgment is of no help to the respondents and if at all it supports the contention of the appellant that the period of limitation prescribed cannot be curtailed by order of the Court. As a necessary corollary it cannot be extended contrary to the statutory provisions. We have, therefore, no doubt in holding that so far as the acquisition of the lands belonging to Palam Potteries is concerned, the proceedings lapsed for failure of the Collector to make an award within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act.68. Before parting with this matter we may notice the fact that in the award made by the Collector three khasra numbers belonging to the appellant were not included. It was, therefore, submitted before us that in any view of the matter the acquisition proceedings in relation to those 3 khasra numbers must lapse. This was indeed not contested by the respondents. However, in view of the fact that we have reached the conclusion that the acquisition proceeding as against the lands of the appellant lapsed for failure to make an award within the period prescribed by Section 11A of the Act, this aspect of the matter lose its significance.