Case: Mandir S.Sita Ramji @ Shree Sitaramji B Vs. Land Acquisition Collector

3. Briefly stated the facts as follows:On 13th November, 1959 a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquisition of app. 35,000 acres of land. The said acquisition was for ?planned development of Delhi?. Amongst the lands, sought to be acquired, were appellants? land of app. 68 acres. Clause 2(d) of the said Notification exempted lands of ?Religious Institutions?4. This acquisition was challenged by a number of parties including the Appellants. The Writ Petition filed by the Appellants was allowed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on the ground that the Appellants were not heard in respect of their objections filed under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Writ Petition. The Appeal filed by the Appellants in this Court was allowed by the judgment reported in Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., (1975) 1 SCR 597.  This Court held that there had been no inquiry as to whether or not the Appellants? land belonged to a religious institution. Therefore, this Court quashed the Section 6 Notification and remitted the matter back to the Land Acquisition Collector to enquire into the objection of the Appellants5. It appears that the Government then decided not to pursue the earlier Section 4 Notification in respect of the Appellants? land. Another Notification dated 13th March, 1975 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire app. 300 bighas for ?planned development of Delhi? was issued. The Appellants again challenged the proposed acquisition by filing a Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the impugned order.

Reasoning: 11. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. In our view, there is no merit in the challenge to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the acquisition was for the purposes of the society covered by Agreement dated 9th May, 1972. The subsequent Notification is merely a followup of the earlier Notification. The entire acquisition is for ?planned development of Delhi?. To be remembered that Appellants? land is in the midst of the 35,000 acres which have been acquired pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 issued in 1959. The Agreement dated 19th May, 1972 does not specify that it is the Appellants? land which is to be allotted to that Society. The society is to be allotted some land and even if Appellants? land is allotted to this society, after acquisition, it will not mean that the acquisition was for this society. Therefore, the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act need not have been complied with14. This could not be denied by the Appellants. It is thus clear that letters and minutes relied upon are mere recommendations. No decision to release from acquisition had been taken. In any event the Prime Minister had turned out this proposal15. Even otherwise, we have seen the scheme sought to be relied upon. We find from the scheme that it only applies in respect of persons/agencies who own and possess the land. In this case possession of the land had already been taken. The scheme also categorically states that the scheme would not take away the rights of the Delhi Development Authority to acquire for development of Delhi. Thus the scheme was not applicable to lands of the Appellants. Even under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act once possession is taken the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition. We thus see no substance in this contention also