JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. versus LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
[2019] 16 S.C.R. 1046, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
v.
LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3278 of 2012)
OCTOBER 24, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 5A, 17(1), (4) – Acquisition
proceedings initiated by issuance of notification u/s.4 of the 1894
Act – Land proposed to be acquired for Vasant Kunj residential
scheme– Appellant-Society claimed the ownership of the land –
Appellant filed writ petition – High Court allowed the writ petition
in part, maintaining the notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act, but
quashed the same with respect to invoking the provision of s.17(4)
of the said Act – On merits, held: No case for interference is made
out – There is no rhyme or reason to direct de-notification of the
land – Prayer in that regard has already been rejected by the
appropriate Government – Merely by the fact that one of the
appellants is Cooperative Society, the complexion of the case does
not change and this fact was duly taken note of at the time of land
acquisition – Land acquisition could not be said to be illegal in any
manner – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.4 and
24(2).
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 No case for interference is made out in the
appeals filed at the instance of the appellants. There is no rhyme
or reason to direct de-notification of the land and a
prayer in that
regard has already been rejected by the appropriate Government.
Merely by the fact that one of the appellants is Cooperative
Society, the complexion of the case does not change and this fact
was duly taken note of at the time of land acquisition under the
Act. Thus, no advantage can be derived from the policy of the
State Government, the land acquisition could not be said to be
illegal in any manner. There is no room for making indulgence to
quash the land acquisition proceedings. [Para 5] [1048-F-G]
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1046
1046
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3278
of 2012
From the Judgment and Order 03.02.2005 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7332 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3279 and 3280 of 2012.
Maninder Singh, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advs., Sibo Sankar
Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Ashok Kumar Singh, V. Balaji, T. A. Khan,
Praveen Gaur,  Ms. Priyanshi Agarwal, Aadhya Mishra, B. V. Balram
Das, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Vasundra, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 3.2.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Delhi. The case pertains to land acquisition proceedings initiated by
way of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (the Act). It was proposed to acquire the land for Vasant Kunj
residential scheme. Enquiry under section 5A was dispensed with as
section 17(1) was invoked. The society filed a representation for
withdrawal of the notification and thereafter filed a writ petition on
6.12.1999. The society claimed the ownership of the land admeasuring
42 bighas 16 biswas situated in village Mehrauli, New Delhi. The
Government of India has policy to ensure shelter to the citizens and
cooperative sector is to be given preference for allotting housing sites to
encourage housing. The appellant-society was not under liquidation at
the time of
issuance of the notification. On 29.9.2000 the declaration
under section 6 of the Act was issued. The High Court allowed the writ
petition in part, maintaining the notification dated 11.11.1999 under section
4 of the Act and quashed the same with respect to invoking the provision
of section 17(4) of the Act.
2. The appeals were earlier heard by a Division Bench of this
Court and decided vide order dated 26.2.2015. At the time of hearing of
the appeal, it was submitted that in view of the provisions contained in
section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v.
LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013
Act). The acquisition has lapsed. This Court disposed of the appeals and
permitted the landholders to initiate appropriate proceedings before the
proper forum/court claiming the benefit of section 4 of the 2013 Act, and
in case orders under section 24 of the 2013 Act are adverse to their
interest, they may apply for reviving the appeal within 90 days of the
passing of the order.
3. It is submitted in the Miscellaneous Applications which have
been filed for revival of the appeals that the writ petition was filed in the
High Court of Delhi. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court.
However, the D.D.A. has challenged the judgment and order passed by
the High Court in the civil appeals. Appels have been allowed vide
judgment and order dated 16.2.2018 hence the applications have been
filed for revival of the appeals.
4. We have revived the appeals and heard them on merits. Shri
Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, urged that the need of the Cooperative Housing Society is
for housing and the Government may be directed to release the land to
the appellants. He has further submitted that the area is no more required
and as per the policy of the Government, land should be de-notified.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the
prayer for de-notifying the land has already been
rejected and there is
no question of de-notification of the acquired land. Correct facts have
not been placed before this Court.
5. We find that no case for interference is made out in the appeals
filed at the instance of the appellants. There is no rhyme or reason to
direct de-notification of the land and a prayer in that regard has already
been rejected by the appropriate Government. Merely by the fact that
one of the appellants is Cooperative Society, the complexion of the case
does not change and this fact was duly taken note of at the time of land
acquisition under the Act. Thus, no advantage can be derived from the
policy of the State Government, the land acquisition could not be said to
be illegal in any manner. There is no room for making indulgence to
quash the land acquisition proceedings. Resultantly, the appeals being
devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.
Divya Pandey
                            Appeals dismissed.