SHANTI SPORTS CLUB & Anr. v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

A refusing to release their land are irrelevant or extraneous. Vague and bald assertions made in the writ petition cannot be made basis for recording a finding that the appellants have been subjected to invidious or hostile discrimination. That apart, the concept of equality B enshrined in that Article is a positive concept. Thus, invoked for perpetuating Article 14 cannot be irregularities or illegalities. [Para 42 and 50] [758-E; 766- · c-E; 767-B]

2.2. The observations contained in the last part of C paragraph 182 of the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court suggesting that the petitioner/applicant can make representation for release of the land and the concerned authorities can examine whether the sports complex could serve the purpose of acquiring the land D for the particular scheme or the scheme can be modified or amended in respect of the 1aod in question were nothing more than pious hope and right!y not responded to by the Government becaus.e in the same paragraph the Full Bench unequivocally ruled that the land was required for residential scheme of Vasant Kunj and the sports complex built by the applica'nt was not in consonance with the public· purpose for which the land was earmarked in the scheme. [Para 42] [758-F-H; 759-A] E F Roshanara Begum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 Delhi 206, referred to.

2.3. The statement made by the counsel representing the State before this Court which finds mention in paragraph 21 of the judgment in Murari's case** not G amount to a commitment on behalf of the Government that representations made for release of land will receive favourable consideration. In any case, once this Court had made it clear in Murari's case that in a matter involving acquisition of thousands of acres of land, it would not be H proper to leave out some small portions here and there .,+ ~ SHANTI SPORTS CLUB & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 717 & ORS. over which some construction may have been made, the A decision of the Government not to withdraw from the acquisition of the land in question cannot be faulted. [Para 42] [759-A-C] **Murai v. Union of India (1999) 1 SCC 15, referred to. B

3.1. As regards the appellants' plea for de-notification of the land covered by the sports complex constructed ~ • by spending crores, admittedly, the appellants came in possession of the land between more than 10 years ~fter finalization of the acquisition proceedings. Thus, the C appellants cannot plead equity and seek court's intervention for protection of the unauthorised constructions raised by them. Once the land is acquired by following due process of law, the same cannot be transferred by the land owner to another person and any D such transfer is void and is not binding on the State. A transferee of the -acquired land can, at best, step into the shoes of the lodge claim for compensation. [Para 43] [759-G-H; 760-A-B] land-owner and