W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 1 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + (1) W.P.(C) 7641/2009 & CM Nos. 3794/2009 & 8937/2009 Reserved on: 25th August, 2009 Pronounced on: 1st September, 2009 # AJAY KUMAR SANGHI ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv. with Mr Virender Goswami and Mr Vaibhav Kumar, Advs. for Petitioner No.1, Mr S.Paul, Advocate for Petitioner No.2 Versus $ DELHI POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondent ^ Through Mr Sanjay Poddar with Mr. N.S. Benipal, Advocates for R-2/LAC Mr Najmi Waziri and Mr Saleem Ahmed, Advs.for R-3 with SHO V.P.Dahiya from P.S. Badarpur Mr Rajesh Mahajan, Adv.for DDA 2. W.P. (C) no. 10518/2009 & CM 9287/2009 # AJAY KUMAR SANGHI ..... Petitioners ! Through Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv. with Mr Virender Goswami and Mr Vaibhav Kumar, Advs. for Petitioner No.1,Mr S.Paul, Adv.for Petitioner No.2 VERSUS $ LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents ^ Through: Mr Sanjay Poddar with Mr. N.S. Benipal, Advocates for R-2/LAC W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 2 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. Mr Najmi Waziri and Mr Saleem Ahmed, Advs.for R-3 with SHO V.P.Dahiya from P.S. Badarpur. Mr Rajesh Mahajan, Adv.for R-3/DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES V.K.Jain, J. By this common Order, we will dispose of both the Petitions referred above. The brief facts, as stated in the petitions, are as follows: The Petitioners are owners of land comprised in Khasra No.97 of Tajpul Village on Mathura Road, Delhi. Initially, the Petitions were filed only by Shri Ajay Kumar Sanghi, impleading the other co- owners namely, Shri Akshay Kumar Sanghi, Shri Nitin Kumar Sanghi and Shri Ashwin Kumar Sanghi. Since it was admitted before us that the Petitioner and Respondents No.4 to 6, namely, W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 3 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. Shri Akshay Kumar Sanghi, Shri Nitin Kumar Sanghi and Shri Ashwin Kumar Sanghi, claim to be in joint possession of land in question and there was no lis between them as regards this land, we directed transposition of Respondents No.4 to 6 as co- Petitioners. It was alleged in WP(C) 7641/09 that on 7.3.2001, Respondent No.1 Delhi Police entered the property of the Petitioner without any authority of law and refused to vacate the same. From Newspaper Reports, the Petitioner came to know that since Police Station Badarpur needs to be relocated on account of the existing land on which it is situated being required for Commonwealth Games, the Petitioner apprehends that Respondent No.1 intends to erect a Police Station on their property. The prayer made in the Writ Petition No.7641/2009 is to direct Respondent No.1 Delhi Police to vacate the aforesaid property. 2. Vide an interim order dated 20.3.2009, the learned Single Judge restrained the Respondents from disturbing the status quo with regard to the possession of the property and also restrained them from carrying any construction, altering the existing structure or parting with possession. W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 4 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a Reply, contesting the Petition. It was stated in the Reply that the entire land of Police Station Badarpur is required by National Highway Authority of India for construction of elevated highway at Badarpur and instructions were accordingly issued to Respondent No.1 to shift Police Station Badarpur to an alternative location. On enquiry from concerned Revenue Authority, it was revealed that five and a half bighas of land with Gaon Sabha Tajpul under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act was, available in Khasra No.97, for a Police Station. A request was accordingly sent to Government of NCT of Delhi, to allocate the aforesaid land to Delhi Police for construction of Police Station Badarpur. Vide letter dated 6.3.2009, the land measuring 5 bighas and 5 biswas, comprised in Khasra No.97 of Village Tajpul, was allotted to Respondent No.1, physical possession of the land was also handed over by the concerned Authority to Delhi Police on 7.3.2009 and, therefore, land in question is in exclusive possession of Delhi Police. 4. During pendency of Writ Petition No.7641/2009, land in question was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, which led to filing of W.P.(C) 10518/2009. It has been stated in this Petition that the Petitioners came across Notification published in Hindustan Times dated 7.7.2009, issued under W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 5 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. Sections 6 and 7 of Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the aforesaid property and they later discovered a Notification dated 19.6.2009 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act notifying that the aforesaid property was likely to be acquired and also notifying dispensing with mandatory provisions of Section 5 of Land Acquisition Act simultaneous with publication of Notification under Section 6 and 7. Respondent No.1 also issued a Notification under Section 9(1) and 17(1) directing Respondent No.2 Land Acquisition Collector to take possession of the aforesaid property within fifteen days from the publication of the Notice. 5. The acquisition has been challenged primarily on the grounds that (1) The Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was not published in accordance with law. (2) Notice as required under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act was not given to the Petitioners. (3) Land belonging to the Government and placed on their disposal of Respondent DDA being available in the vicinity, there was no necessity of acquiring land of the Petitioners. W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 6 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. (4) The acquisition was mala fide having been made only with a view to defeat the status quo order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7641/2009. 6. It has also been stated in the Petition that requirement of land for a Police Station is not a public purpose and there was no such urgency, as would justify resort to the urgency provision of Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act. The Petitioner has sought quashing of the Notifications dated 19.6.2009 issued under Section 4 as well as the subsequent Notifications dated 1.7.2009 under Sections 6, 7 and 17 of the Act. 7. In its reply filed in Civil Writ Petition No. 10518 of 2009, respondent No. 3, Delhi Police, besides reiterating the averments made in its reply in Civil Writ Petition 7641/09, has alleged that a joint survey was conducted by Revenue Department and Delhi Police at the sites which were identified as Gaon Sabha lands in village Tajpul. These lands were i) Khasra No. 97 admeasuring 5.5. Bighas, ii) Khasra Nos. 104/2 (0-1), iii) 105/2 (4-11) and iv) 106 (1-14) in Village Tajpul. One land filling site abutting Jaipur Road was also considered. The site abutting Jaitpur Road was found having very deep pits and was far away from the main road. After assessing the sites, their location, nature of the lands, W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 7 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. accessibility, current user and other relevant factors, these lands, except the land under khasra No. 97, were not found suitable by Delhi Police for location of a Police Station. The land falling in khasra No. 97 was found to be more suitable for the Police Station, since it is located on main highway; it would provide the most visibility, besides easy access to citizens and would also facilitate quick response in deployment of police force. The proposed Police Station is required to be near the interstate border for any exigencies, as security concerns demand that minimum time should be lost in deployment of the requisite police force. It has also been stated that some other land belonging to DDA available on Mathura Road were also shown to Delhi Police, amongst which one was behind Kajaria and other one was at Ali Modh. The site behind Kajaria was not suitable to Delhi Police and the site of Ali Modh has already been handed over to DMRC by DDA. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it has been alleged that land in question is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and since it was not being used in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Revenue Assistant initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, which culminated in order dated 29.5.1981, whereby the Revenue Assistant directed the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 8 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. to repair the damage within three months from the date of the order, failing which the land was directed to be vested in Gaon Sabha. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the directions of the Revenue Assistant, the land in question came to be vested in Gaon Sabha and entry was made accordingly in revenue record. It has been further stated that since land underneath Police Station Badarpur was required by National Highway Authority of India for construction of a six lane elevated highway, the issue of providing alternative site for the Police Station was discussed at the highest level, including by the Cabinet Secretary. The Chief Secretary of Delhi constituted a committee comprising of officers from nine departments of the government to find out a suitable alternative site. Upon inspection of various sites, land in question was found most suitable for a police station. The matter was accordingly placed before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, for appropriate order for allotment of the aforesaid land to Police Station, which is a public purpose under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. The Lieutenant Governor, in exercise of the power conferred upon him under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, directed Gaon Sabha to allot the land in question to the Police Department, for construction of a police station. This decision of the Lt. Governor was conveyed by Director (Panchayat) to the Commissioner of W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 9 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. Police vide letter dated 6.3.2009 and pursuant thereto possession was handed over to Delhi Police, by Revenue Authorities, on 7.3.09. It has been further alleged that since land was urgently required for construction of police station, which has to be shifted from its existing site, and resolution of dispute with regard to title of the petitioner viz-a-viz Gaon Sabha was likely to take some time, the Lt. Governor, in larger public interest, decided to acquire land in question under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, on payment of compensation to the rightful owner. Permission of the Lt. Governor was obtained on 28.5.09, for initiation of proceedings under Land Acquisition Act and after carrying out necessary survey and verifying the record, the matter was placed before the Lt. Governor, seeking approval for issuing notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act and to dispense with inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, on account of urgency involved in the matter. The Lt. Governor after being satisfied of the requirement of Delhi Police and also about urgency in the matter, passed an order dated 13.6.09 directing issue of requisite notification. It has been further stated in the Reply that notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, read with Section 17(4) thereof, was issued on 19.6.09 and was published in two newspapers as well as in the locality on 25.6.09. The same W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 10 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. was also published in the official Gazette, thereby complying all the mandatory requirements of the Act regarding the publication of the notification. Thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.7.09, declaring the intention of the Government to acquire land in question for a public purpose, namely construction of Police Station, and the same was published in „The Hindustan Times‟ on 7.7.09. Another notification was also issued under Section 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act, authorising the Land Acquisition Collector to take possession of the land in question after expiry of 15 days from the date of issue of notice under Section 9 of the Act. However, the Land Acquisition Collector could not take possession of the land on account of interim order passed by this court in CWP No. 7541 of 2009. It has also been stated in the reply that the claim of the petitioner for ownership right in land in question was being resisted by Gaon Sabha on the strength of the order passed by the Revenue Assistant and therefore in order to balance the rival claims and rights of all the parties, it was decided to acquire the land in question and pay current market value to the rightful owner. 9. In his counter affidavit, respondent No. 2, the Land Acquisition Collector has taken stand, identical to the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. It has W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 11 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. also been stated in his counter affidavit that Land Acquisition Collector issued individual notice under Section 9 of the Act to the recorded owner, besides issuing a public notice under Section 10 of the Act, asking the persons interested to file their claims before him and pursuant thereto the petitioner has also filed his claim before the Land Acquisition Collector. 10. The first arguments advanced before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that the notification purporting to be issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was not published in the prescribed manner. Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act requires the notification to be published in the official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of which one has to be in the regional language. The Collector is also required to cause the public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has placed before us the file relating to acquisition of land in question. On perusal of the file, we find that the notification dated 19.6.09, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was published in „The Times of India‟ as well as in „Rashtriya Sahara‟ both dated 25th June, 2009. Newspaper „Rashtriya Sahara‟ being a Hindi newspaper, the notification was published in it in Hindi which is W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 12 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. the regional language of Delhi. We also find that the notification dated 19th June, 2009, was also sent for publication in Part-IV of Delhi Extraordinary Gazette. A perusal of the endorsement made on the same day, on the notification dated 19.6.09 would show that its copy was forwarded to ADM/LAC (South), M.B. Road, Saket with the request that necessary publicity be also made in the village. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention that notification issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was not published properly. 11. The publication of declaration/notification dated 1.7.09 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in newspapers, has been admitted in the petition. The file produced for our perusal also shows that the notification / declaration was duly published in English in newspaper „The Hindustan Times‟ and in Hindi in „Navbharat Times‟ dated July 7, 2009. A perusal of the file shows that notification dated 1.7.2009 was sent for publication in Part-IV of Delhi Extraordinary Gazette and a copy of the same was also endorsed to ADM/LAC (South) with a request that necessary publicity may also be made in the village. Copies of all the newspapers are available in the file of the respondents, produced for perusal of the court. Therefore, we are satisfied that the notification dated 1.7.09 was also duly published. Another W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 13 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. notification dated 1.7.09 was also published in newspaper whereby, in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Ld. Governor directed the Land Acquisition Collector to take possession of land in question on expiry of 15 days from the date of publication. This notification was also sent for publication in Part-IV of Delhi Extraordinary Gazette. Thus, there was due compliance of legal requirements, in the matter of publication of notifications. 12. Now we come to the contention that the acquisition was bad for want of issue of notice to the petitioner under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act, Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under: “Section 17(1): In case of urgency, whenever the [appropriate Government], so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9, sub-section (1), [take possession of any land needed for a public purpose]. Such land shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all encumbrances.” It is quite clear from a bare perusal of the above referred provision that if the Govt. invokes urgency provisions, the possession can be taken on expiry of 15 days from the publication W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 14 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. of notice mentioned in Section 9(1), and thereupon the land shall vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Notice under Section 9(3) is not required to be given before taking possession, in exercise of emergency powers under Section 17(1) of the Act. 13. In the present case, if the land in question is already in possession of the respondent Delhi Police as is claimed by them, though the case of the petitioners is that they are not as yet ousted from possession of the entire land, public notice envisaged under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act would not be necessary. Moreover, as is evident from the acquisition file produced before us, a notice was published in newspaper on 7th July, 2009 informing the public at large that the Lt. Governor was pleased to direct Land Acquisition Collector (South) to take possession of the land, the specifications of which were given in Notification No. F.9(62)/09/L&B/LA/3130 dated 19.6.09 under Section 4 and Notification No. F.9(62)/09/L&B/LA/3815 dated 1.7.09 under Section 6 of the Act, on expiry of 15 days from publication of the notice under Sub Section 1 of Section 9 of the Act. The copy of the newspapers, in which Notification dated 1.7.09 was published on 7th July, 2009, has also been placed on record by the respondent. A perusal of the endorsement made on the Notification dated W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 15 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. 1.7.09 shows that its copy was also forwarded to ADM / LAC (South) with the request that necessary publicity may also be made in the village. 14. Even if we assume that no notice as envisaged under Section 9(1) of Land Acquisition Act was given by the respondents, that by itself will not vitiate acquisition as it has a bearing only on the quantum of compensation. This question came up consideration before a Division Bench of this court in Deepak Resorts & Hotels P. Ltd & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors., 2008 V AD (DELHI) 466. The contention before Division Bench was that taking over of possession, even when authorized in terms of an order passed under Section 17(1) was possible only if the requirement of Section 9 of the Act were strictly complied with and failure to do so had the effect of rendering the entire process illegal including the notification issued earlier. Repelling the contention the Division Bench inter alia held as under: “6. A conjoint reading of Section 9(1) and Section 17(1) supra would leave no manner of doubt that the very purpose underlying the issue of a public notice is to invite claims for payment of compensation to all those interested in the same. The purpose behind the issue of such a public notice is not to hear objections as to whether W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 16 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. possession of the land should or should not be taken over by the Collector. The purpose simply is to invite claims for payment of compensation for all interests held in the land under acquisition. “It was next argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that even a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act had not been issued. This according to them has the effect of vitiating the acquisition proceedings. We do not think so for two precise reasons. Firstly because the official record produced by Mr. Poddar shows that a notice under Section 9(1) was in fact issued by the Collector 15 days before the possession of the land was taken by him on the 5th December, 2007. Secondly because the failure of a notice under Section 9(1) does not have the effect of vitiating the acquisition proceedings themselves as was argued on behalf of the petitioners. That is because the purpose underlying the issue of the notice is simply to invite claims for payment of compensation for the land under acquisition. The non-issue of a public notice in terms of Section 9(1) of the Act may be an irregularity but the same does not have the effect of nullifying the acquisition proceedings themselves. The purpose underlying that notice is as well served by a notice to the occupier and the persons interested under Section 9(3) of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Collector has made an award without inviting claims as W.P.(C) No. 10518/2009 Page 17 of 47 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. with WP(C) No. 7641/2009 Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.Delhi Police & Ors. required under Section 9(3). The argument on the contrary was that no award has been made by the Collector hence, there was no occasion for him to tender 80% of the compensation payable for the land in question. We shall presently deal with the later limb of the argument. Suffice it to say that so long as the occupier or the owner of the land or any person interested in the land is given a notice under Section 9(3) before the making of the award and so long as any