Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi vs Lt.Governor,Govt.Of Nct Delhi & Ors

CA Nos.4849-4850/2000 Development of Delhi". This notification had, within its ambit, agricultural land belonging to the appellant society, bearing Khasra No. 157 in Village Lado Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi measuring 8 Bighas and 11 Biswas or 8620 sq. yards equivalent to 1.8 acres. The appellant filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on the 10th December 1959 submitting that the land be exempted from the proposed acquisition. It pointed out that the appellant body was a registered trust and a religious body managing three temples in Pilani, Rajasthan and several gardens, water tanks etc. having religious significance. The objections raised were apparently found without merit whereafter the Chief Commissioner issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act which was published on 16th May 1966 pertaining to 2153 Bighas 2 Biswas corresponding to about 448 acres. The Collector, Land Acquisition also rendered his award on 19th June 1980 clarifying that it pertained only to 1996 Bighas 18 Biswas leaving out an area of 156 Bighas 4 Biswas for the time being 3 CA Nos.4849-4850/2000 as it was built up and that the award for this area would be given later. The appellant's property Khasra No.157 was, however, included in the award of 19th June, 1980. It appears that pursuant to the award possession of 1933 Bighas and 2 Biswas was taken by the Collector, Land Acquisition on the 20th June 1980 and further handed over to the beneficiary department. It was, however, observed in the proceedings of 20th June 1980 that the possession of the balance area of about 61 Bighas would be taken after the removal of the structures with the help of the demolition squad. On the 29 th July 1980 a Notification under Section 22 (1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 was issued by the Central Government, placing the acquired land at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority for the planned development of Delhi. At this stage, the appellant filed CWP No.1068 of 1980 in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. This petition was dismissed in limine on the 18 th August 1980. The appellant thereupon preferred Special 4 CA Nos.4849-4850/2000 Leave Petition in this Court and after leave was granted the appeal was registered as C.A. No. 1738 of 1981. While the appeal was still pending, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2220/1981 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court. It appears that an interim order was made by the Supreme Court in these proceedings on 15th of July 1981 staying dispossession of the appellant from the property in dispute and the said order was confirmed on 16th September 1982. Both the Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition aforementioned were, however, dismissed by this Court on the 20th July 1993. It also appears from the record that while the aforementioned two matters were pending in this Court, the appellant filed Suit No. 1226 of 1992 on the Original Side of the Delhi High Court praying for an injunction against the respondents, including the Delhi Development Authority, that no structure be demolished and that no interference be made with the plaintiff's possession and management of the Suit land. An interim injunction was also sought and obtained in these proceedings. It is the appellant's case that though the 5 CA Nos.4849-4850/2000 aforesaid Suit was transferred to the District Court in Delhi on account of the revision of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the said interim injunction still continued to operate, but despite the interim orders the Delhi Development Authority continued to impinge on the appellant's property on which a Contempt Petition was filed in the High Court, which in its order dated 19th May 1992, directed the respondent authorities to ensure compliance with the High Court's order dated 2nd April 1992 made in the civil suit. It is further the case of the appellant that some time later the Delhi Development Authority again tried to interfere with the appellant's property on which yet another Contempt Petition No.36 of 1993 was filed and the same is said to be pending. The appellant, however, continued to be persist in its efforts to save the acquired land and at this stage filed C.W.P.No.700 of 1994 in the Delhi High Court on 28th January 1994 challenging, inter-alia, the constitutional validity of Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, whereunder the acquired land had been handed over to the DDA, and also praying for the 6 CA Nos.4849-4850/2000 allotment of an alternative site in lieu of the acquired land. This writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on September 8, 1995 the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner (the present appellant) in the following terms:

3. Still dissatisfied, the appellant filed W.P. No. 623 of 1995 in the Delhi High Court challenging some facets of the alleged violation of the Master Plan of 2001 which had statedly made the entire proceedings for the planned development of Delhi incohate and which had rendered the acquisition without any authority of law . This matter came up before the Delhi High Court after notice on 20th February 1995 on which the High Court observed that the petitioner was seeking two distinct prayers in the Writ Petition, (1) that the land which had been 7 CA Nos.4849-4850/2000 acquired under the Land Acquisition Act should be released from acquisition and (2) that the DDA should not be permitted to use the aforesaid land for a purpose other than that postulated in the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan and as the two prayers were mutually distinct and pertained to different causes of action, one writ petition was not maintainable. On this, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.K. Anand stated that he would file two separate writ petitions for which liberty was granted and the papers of CWP No. 623 of 1995 were accordingly returned to the counsel. The appellant thereupon moved two writ petitions i.e. W. P. Nos. 1628/1995 praying that the respondent DDA be restrained from taking over possession of the land and Writ Petition No. 1629/1995 seeking to challenge the land acquisition proceedings which had been initiated by the Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the year 1959 and 1966 respectively and also pleading that as the possession had not been taken, the land be released under Section 48 of the Act. The Division 8 CA Nos.4849-4850/2000 Bench while dealing with the question of possession held that the writ petitioner had only relied on two stray entries in two Khasra Girdawaris for the period 13th October 1980 to 11th March 1981 which had recorded the land to be "Gair Mumkin Kotha Pukhta and Char Diwari" and that this entry was meaningless in the light of the fact that the land had been described as "Rosli" (agricultural) and not a built up property in the award No.36/80-81 dated 19.6.1980 and that in any case the plea appeared to be an after thought as it had not been taken by the petitioner though it was available at the time when Writ Petition No. 1068/1980 (in the Delhi High Court) and Writ Petition No.2220/1981 had been directly filed in this Court. The Court further held that it was clear from the proceedings recorded by Shri Lal Singh Naib Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, on 20th June 1980 in the presence of a large number of Revenue Officials that possession had indeed been taken over on that day after demarcation had been made with respect to 1933 bighas 2 biswas, including the land belonging to the appellant, and that boundary pillars had been affixed 9 CA Nos.4849-4850/2000 round the demarcated land and that the possession had further been handed over to Shri N.N. Seth, Tehsildar on 20th, 21st, 23rd and 24th of June 1980. The Court also noted that the proceedings aforementioned were witnessed as to their authenticity by Shri N.N.Seth, and the two DDA Officials, Shri Raj Bahadur and Shri Gulab Singh. The Division Bench in this background observed that possession had, in fact, been taken over after appropriate proceedings. The two writ petitions were accordingly dismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide the impugned judgment leading to the present appeals as a consequence.

Tehsildar has made a detailed valuation to which I agree and award Rs.2870/- as compensation as these channels."

To our mind, therefore, even assuming that the appellant had re-entered the land on account of the various interim orders granted by the courts, or even otherwise, it would have no effect for two reasons, (1) that the suits/petitions were ultimately dismissed and (2) that the land once having vested in the Government by virtue of Section 16 of the Act, re-entry by the land owner would not obliterate the consequences of vesting.

12. We must also observe that the petitioner has been able to frustrate the acquisition and development of the land right from the 1980 onwards by taking recourse to one litigation after the other. The record reveals that all the suits/writ petitions etc. that had been filed had failed. Undoubtedly, every citizen has a right to utilize all legal means which are open to him in a bid to vindicate and protect his rights, but if the court comes to the 27 CA Nos.4849-4850/2000 conclusion that the pleas raised are frivolous and meant to frustrate and delay an acquisition which is in public interest, deterrent action is called for. This is precisely the situation in the present matter. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with costs which are determined at Rupees two lacs. The respondents, shall, without further loss of time proceed against the appellant.