Meera Sahni vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors

6. The legality of the aforesaid Notifications and declarations, which were issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and subsequent Notification under Section 9, were challenged by various land holders whose lands were proposed to be acquired by the aforesaid notifications. The appellants/predecessor in-interest of the appellants also filed similar writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi challenging the legality and validity of the notification and declaration under which their land was proposed to be acquired. Smt. Meera Sahni filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1003 of 1983, Smt. Padma Mahant filed Civil Writ Petition No.1002 of 1983 and whereas Writ Petition No.1086 of 1983 was filed by Shri Khyali Ram, the predecessor in-interest of other three appellants, namely, (1) Sapphire Sales (P) Ltd. (2) Zircon Trading (P) Ltd. and (3) Eternal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The said writ petitions were finally heard along with few other letters patent appeals, and all the writ petitions and the letters patent appeals were 4 dismissed. The said decision was rendered By the Delhi High Court on 01.12.1995 under the title Roshanara Begum v. Union of India reported in 61 (1996) DLT 206. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the writ petitioners preferred appeals in this Court. Some of the cases which were pending in the High Court and pertained to the identical issue were also transferred to this Court. A number of contentions were raised before this Court challenging the legality of the orders passed by the High Court and also challenging the acquisition proceedings of lands of the appellants which were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. After considering in- depth all the submissions made, this Court by the judgment and order dated 01.11.1996, under the title Murari and others v. Union of India and others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 15 dismissed the said appeals and upheld the acquisition proceedings.

8. Being aggrieved by the said award Mrs. Meera Sahni and Padma Mahant filed Review Petition Nos.103/99 and 104/99 respectively before the High Court and thereafter filed second substantive Writ Petition being No.5918/1999 on the ground that the lands in dispute were purchased only after obtaining due permission under Section 5 of the Delhi Lands Act and that the sale deeds were executed in their favour were duly registered with the sub registrar on 05.06.1980 with the endorsement that No Objection Certificate (for short "NOC") has been obtained. Issue of an order or direction declaring the award and the further proceedings under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act as invalid, illegal and void was prayed for in the said proceedings. Seeking similar relief, Writ Petition No.1076 of 2000 was filed by Saphire Sales (P) Ltd., Writ Petition No.1074 of 2000 was filed by Zircon Trading (P) Ltd and Writ Petition No.1075/2000 was filed by Eternal Agencies Pvt. Ltd., enclosing therewith the possession proceedings dated 27.1.2000. The said three companies purchased the land from the legal representatives of Shri Khyali Ram under the registered sale deed dated 23.06.1992. At this point it is worth mentioning that no application for substitution was filed by the said appellants for substitution of their names in writ petition filed by Shri Khyali Ram although the same was pending at the time when such transfer was made and was finally decided in the case of Roshanara Begum (Supra) in the year 1995.

Sd/-

27/5/92 For Tehsildar Notification For Additional District Magistrate (LA) Delhi (Clauses not applicable should be deleted )"

The competent authority as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the aforesaid Act is, therefore, the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Delhi Administration and he is the only authorized competent person to exercise the powers vested under sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Delhi lands Act. No other authority or anyone else, subordinate to him was ever authorized to exercise the aforesaid power. 1

18. On perusal of the documents placed on record we find that the permission/NOC which is referred to and relied on by all the appellants herein appears to have been issued not by the Additional District Magistrate, who is the competent authority in the present case. The same appears to have been issued by some person signing for Tehsildar and for Additional District Magistrate. In any case Tehsildar is also not authorized to act as a competent authority as envisaged under Section 5, 6 and 8 of the Delhi Lands Act. Neither were we informed nor was any evidence placed on record identifying the authority or the person on whose instructions the aforesaid two documents were prepared. Therefore, the aforesaid documents which are relied on cannot be said to be valid and legal permission granted by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act permitting transfer of land by way of sale to the present appellants.

24. We, therefore, dismiss all these appeals and uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also by the Full Bench which dismissed the writ petitions and the letters Patent Appeal. The appeals are dismissed with costs.

July 15, 2008