DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD & Ors.

Ishwar Chand Gupta v. Union of India Writ Petition No. 2736 of 1985 (Delhi HC); Munni Lal v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1983 SCC OnLine Del 321; Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1987 Del 239; Shri B.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 1988 SCC OnLine Del 367; Balbir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. 1989 SCC OnLine Del 211; Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh (1997) 5 SCC 430; Abhey Ram & Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 421 : [1997] 3 SCR 931; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 44; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 296 : [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496; Godfrey Phillips v. Union of India 2005 (125) Delhi Law Times 207; Om Parkash vs. Union of India (2010) 4 SCC 17 : [2010] 2 SCR 447; Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008) 9 SCC 177 : [2008] 10 SCR 1012; M. Venkatesh v. Bangalore Development Authority (2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11 SCR 454; Government (NCT of Delhi) v.

Manav Dharam Trust & Anr (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 – referred to. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. 7 (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1; Shyam Nandan A B C D E F G H DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS. 1197 Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 255 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 533; Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Anr. v. S. Saraswathy & Ors (2015) 8 SCC 723 : [2015] 6 SCR 331; State of Haryana & Anr. v. Devander Sagar & Ors. (2016) 14 SCC 746 : [2015] 13 SCR 1057; Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors (2019) 10 SCC 229 – relied on. Case Law Reference [1997] 3 SCR 931 referred to [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496 referred to [2010] 2 SCR 447 [2008] 10 SCR 1012 [2015] 11 SCR 454 [2017] 4 SCR 232 [2020] 3 SCR 1 referred to referred to referred to referred to relied on [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 533 relied on [2015] 6 SCR 331 [2015] 13 SCR 1057 relied on relied on Para 13 Para 14 Para 20 Para 25 Para 25 Para 27 Para 27 Para 32 Para 33 Para 34 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.

3073 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 6507 of 2014. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv., Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, Vivek B. Saharya, Gobind Kumar for M/s Saharya & Co., Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Kapil Sibal, Debal Bannerjee, Sr. Advs., Merusagar Samantaray, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Durga Dutt, Aniruddha Purushotham, Manvendra Singh, Ms. BLN Shivani, Aman Sharma, Ms. Shreya Jain, Ms. S. Mehta, Amrish K. Sharma, Nizam Pasha, Krishan Kumar, Pankaj Vivek, Nitin Pal, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for the Respondents. A B C D E F G H 1198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 11 was allowed and the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 18942 were declared to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20133.

The process of acquisition of land admeasuring 50,000 Bighas situated in 12 villages for the planned development of Delhi started way back in 1980. The intention to acquire the land was published vide notification dated 5.11.1980 in respect of land situated in villages of Tughlakabad, Tigri, Deoli, Khanpur, Said-ul-Ajaib, Neb Sarai, Hauz Khas and Khirki, and vide notification dated 25.11.1980 in respect of the land situated in villages Chattarpur, Satbari Maidangarhi, Sayoorpur and Rajpur Khurd. The declarations under Section 6 of the Act were published on 27.5.1985, 6.6.1985, 7.6.1985 and 26.2.1986 and the award were announced on 20.5.1987 or thereafter.

M/s. Satluj Bhatta Co. through its partners4 (1) Shri Ishwar Chander Gupta; (2) Shri Hari Chand; and (3) Shri Jai Chand were owners of land admeasuring 58 Bigha 14 Biswa. An agreement to sell was executed by them on 25.9.1990 for the land measuring 28 Bigha 08 Biswa with the purchaser. Thereafter, the purchaser is said to have purchased the land in question vide sale deeds dated 30.8.1991 and 27.2.1991.

The purchaser for the first time in written synopsis, filed after the conclusion of the arguments, asserted that the original land owners in respect of land measuring 58 Bigha 14 Biswa situated in revenue estate of Village Sayoorpur, had filed a Writ Petition No. 2736 of 1985 titled as Ishwar Chand Gupta v. Union of India before the High Court. We requisitioned the records of the said writ petition from the High Court. It transpires that the writ petition was filed on or about 30.10.1985 on the ground that the notification dated 20.5.1985 under Section 6 of 1 For short, the ‘purchaser’ 2 For short, the ‘Act’ 3 For short, the ‘2013 Act’ 4 Hereinafter referred to as “Original land owners” B C D E F G H DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.] 1199 the Act had been published after a period of more than three years of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 25.11.1980. There is no assertion that the original land owners had filed any objections under Section 5A of the Act. The said writ petition was dismissed on 2.12.1985 when the following order was passed:

For the reasons recorded in Civil Writ No. 426 of 1981 titled Muni Lal & Others Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others decided on 15th November, 1983 and Civil Writ 2850 of 1985 titled Hemant Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India and others decided on 25th November, 1985, the petition is without merit. Dismissed.

The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4169 of 1986 filed against the said order was withdrawn on 12.9.1989 with two other petitions. The order passed by this Court reads as thus:

These three special leave petitions along with several other cases were heard together. They are directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting the writ petitions of the present petitioners challenging a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated by Mr. Chitale, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition No. 1224 of 1986 that on a subsequent writ petition filed by another interested party, the High Court has struck down the subsequent notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and in the circumstances the present special leave petitions have become infructuous and will not be pressed. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has refuted the proposition. He says that the subsequent judgment of the Delhi High Court may be impugned in this Court and if the challenge is successful, the petitioners who are not parties to that case will not be in a position to take any advantage out of the afore-said judgment of the High Court. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that even if the said notification issued under Section 6 finally stands quashed, the authorities will be entitled to issue a fresh notification under Section 6 on the basis of the Section 4 notification which has been unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners in the present case. We do not consider it necessary to decide the question as to whether the special leave petitions have become infructuous or not and whether on their withdrawal by the petitioners they are going to suffer in the long run as the learned counsel for the A B C D E F G H 1200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H petitioners, even after we made this position clear to them, stated that the S.L.Ps. would not be pressed. Since the petitioners are withdrawing the S.L.Ps. at their own risk, the same are dismissed as withdrawn. There will be no order as to costs.

The process of acquisition was challenged in a number of other writ petitions before the High Court and stay of dispossession was granted therein even before the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published. One of such writ petitions was Munni Lal v. Lt. Governor of Delhi5. The validity of the declarations under Section 6 of the Act was challenged inter-alia on the ground that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed in view of the Central Act No. 68 of 1984 fixing time limit for publication of notification under Section 6 of the Act. Such question was examined by the Full Bench of the High Court in a judgment dated 27.5.1987 reported as Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India6. The Full Bench held that the period during which the acquisition proceedings were stayed should be excluded while determining the validity of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, it was found that the notification under Section 6 of the Act was within the time fixed by the statute. The matter was remitted to the Division Bench as the Full Bench was of the view that it would not be convenient or possible for the Full Bench to consider and pronounce the numerous contentions which may be raised in each one of the 73 petitions.

The Division Bench decided all the writ petitions in the judgment reported as Shri B.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.7 when the following operative order was passed on 14.10.1988: “The orders of Land Acquisition Collectors under Section 5A and the notifications issued by the Lt. Governor under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act together with further land acquisition proceedings in all the above writ petition are quashed and set aside with cost. There shall be two set of counsel’s fees at Rs. 1,500/- each as the group of petitions were heard mainly in the two writ petitions. The respondents have also not filed the counter affidavits in all the petitions as it was agreed to complete two sets of petitions with counter affidavits. The rule is made absolute. ‘Reasons to follow’’. 5 1983 SCC OnLine Del 321 6 For short, the ‘Balak Ram-I’, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 227 : AIR 1987 Del 239 7 For short, the ‘Balak Ram-II’, 1988 SCC OnLine Del 367 : (1989) 37 DLT 150 (DB) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.] 1201

The High Court upon recording the reasons on 18.11.1988 set aside the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act as the writ petitioner was neither given an opportunity of personal hearing, nor was he actually heard in the objections filed by the landowners under Section 5A of the Act and since there was no record maintained for consideration of large number of objections filed by the writ petitioners/landowners. It was held that the writ petitioner whose land is being taken by the Government without his consent has a right to know the reasons as to why his claim for exemption was being declined. It was held as under:

16. We may note that there are number of other contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition apart from the ones that are mentioned and considered above. We need not go into all of them and given any finding, since we have already come to the conclusion that reports under Section 5A and orders under Section 6 cannot be sustained in law on the basis of the contentions already noted by us.

Many landowners filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the action of the Delhi Administration to take possession from them even though the declaration under Section 6 of the Act stood quashed in its entirety in Balak Ram-II. The High Courtin a judgment reported as Balbir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.8 held on 15.5.1989 that the action of the respondents to take the possession from the landowners was not sustainable. Thus, the benefit of the judgment was extended to all the landowners as the entire notification under Section 6 of the Act was found to be quashed. The Court passed the following order: “This order will dispose of CW 1373-75/89.............illegible. Proceedings u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act right upto the stage of Award relating to villages, namely, Khan Pur Deoli @ Devli, Tughlakabad, Khirkee, Neb Sarai, Said-ul-Ajaib, Tigri, Shayoor Pur, Satbari, Chattar Pur, Raj Pur Khurd, Maidan Ghari, have been quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in Balak Ram Gupta vs. U.O.I. C.W.P. 1639/85 decided on 14th October, 1988/18th November, 1988. The prayer of the petitioners is that in spite of that Judgment, the respondents are trying to take possession of the land. 8 1989 SCC OnLine Del 211 : (1989) 39 DLT 233 (DB) A B C D E F G H 1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.

2. The Delhi Administration as also the Delhi Development Authority have taken up a very fair stand before us. Their contention is that certain land owners have received compensation and as such they should not be allowed to deal with the land till the compensation is paid back to the Delhi Administration with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date they received the payment till the date they have refunded the amount. The contention raised is quite fair and is accepted. It is further stated by learned counsel for the respondents that no effort would be made to take possession of any land from anybody and the possession already taken of these lands will be restored back to the land owners on receipt of the refund of compensation, if made with interest. It is further con-tended that in certain cases, the land owners have been allotted alternate plots in leiu of their land having been acquired and in those cases the alternate plots must be surrendered before the land owners can take advantage of the quashing of the notifications. The counsel for the petitioner accepts this suggestion of the respondents. Consequently, we direct that the possession of the petitioners will not be disturbed except in cases where the compensation has been received by the land owners or alternate plots have been allotted until the compensation amount and the alternate plot is surrendered. Counsel for the petitioners agree that the land owners who have received compensation or have been allotted alternate plots would surrender the same as indicated above within two months from today. All other land owners who have neither received compensation nor any alternate plot are free to deal with their lands the way they like and their possession will not be disturbed by the respondents. Delhi Administration will see to it that the Revenue records are amended accordingly. The proper authority i.e. the Land Acquisition Collector will receive the refund of compensation with 12 per cent interest per annum as well as the surrender of the alternate plots when and if offered. The writ petitions are disposed of in these terms.”

The Union of India sought review of the order passed (RA No. 2766 of 1989) in the all the matters. The review was dismissed on 6.7.1990 on the ground that since the entire notification stands quashed, therefore, Union cannot keep the possession. A B C D E F G H DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.] 1203

The said judgment and order of the Division Bench in Balbir Singh came up for consideration before this Court in a judgment reported as Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh in Civil Appeal No. 3847 of 1991 and Civil Appeal Nos. 3801-3847/19919. This Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India or by the Delhi Development Authority on 20.9.1991 except to the extent that the land of Village Saidul Azab was not part of the writ petitions which were decided in Balak Ram-II.

The order of the High Court in C.W.P. No. 2657/85 Abhey Ram vs. Union of India dated 2.9.1987 was passed in the writ petition filed by the land owners of Village Khirkee on the ground that the notification dated 7.6.1985 under Section 6 of the Act has been issued after three years of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 5.11.1980. In the said case also, the land owners had not filed any objections under Section 5A of the Act. The writ petition was dismissed. The order of the High Court reads thus:-

It transpires that this petition challenges the Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 7th June, 1985. The validity of this Notification has already been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Balak Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India, CWP No. 1639/85 decided on 27th May, 1987. No other point is pressed. The writ petition is consequently dismissed

.

The said order was the subject matter of appeal before this Courtin a judgment reported as Abhey Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.10. A three judge Bench in the said judgment inter-alia examined an argument raised that the benefit of quashing of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act by the High Court in Balak Ram-II should be extended to the appellants, though the notification had been quashed qua the writ petitioners before the High Court. This Court examined the question as to whether a declaration under Section 6 of the Act in its entirety stands quashed even when the Court had quashed the declaration in the case of the land owners who had filed writ petitions after their objections were not considered under Section 5-A of the Act. This Court noticed that unfortunately, the operative part of the judgment (as reproduced in para 7 of this judgment) in Balak Ram-II had not been