1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2362 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.27383 of 2015)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MUNNI LAL & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2363 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.27389 of 2015)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SWARUP SINGH & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  have  been  preferred  by  the  Delhi

Development Authority (for short, “the DDA”) aggrieved by

the  judgment  and  order  dated  25.11.2014  passed  by  the

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi declaring that as the

2

physical possession has not been taken, the acquisition

has lapsed under the provision of Section 24(2) of the

Right  to  Fair  Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land

Acquisition,  Rehabilitation  and  Resettlement  Act,  2013

(hereafter referred to as "the Act of 2013").  The facts,

in short, indicate that notification under section 4 was

issued  on  5.4.1995  for  the  acquisition  of  land  for

construction  of  Freight  Complex  (Narela)  under  Planned

Development  of  Delhi.   The  emergency  provision  of  sub

Section  1  of  section  17  read  with  section  17(4)  was

invoked. It was ordered that the provision of section 5 A

shall not apply.  Declaration under section 6 was issued

on 22.12.1995 for the purpose of acquisition of land and

the award was passed on 19.12.1997.

3. The petitioners-therein have filed writ petitions in

the year 1996, however, they have withdrawn the same in

2012  with  prayer  seeking  liberty  to  file  fresh  writ

petition for quashing of the order rejecting the prayer

with  respect  to  de-requisition  of  land  passed  on

19.04.2012.  Thereafter, fresh writ petitions have been

filed in the year 2012. During the pendency of the writ

applications, the Act of 2013 came into force.  The High

3

Court  has  quashed  the  acquisition;  hence,  the  appeals

have been preferred.

4.   With respect to whether acquisition had lapsed by

virtue of the provisions contained in section 24 of the

Act of 2013, the matter was referred to a larger bench

and the reference has been answered by three Judge Bench

of  this  Court in Indore  Development  Authority  vs.

Shailendra (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.20982

of  2017)  on  8.2.2018.  In  view  of  the  answers  to  the

questions, the impugned orders quashing the acquisition

on the ground of Section 24 are liable to be quashed and

are set aside.  

5. On  merits  of  the  case,  the  submissions  raised  on

behalf  of  the  land  owners  are  two-fold  that  when  the

declaration under section 6 was issued after eight months

inquiry under section 5 A ought to have been held.  Thus,

invocation of the urgency provision could not be said to

be proper.  There was non-application of mind in respect

of  invoking  the  provision  under  section  17  of  Act  of

1894.  The second submission is that certain other area

has been de-notified on 31.5.1999 which was covered under

the same notification and the farm/ house in question is

4

the  only  accommodation  available  with  the  respondents-

herein which should have been de-notified.  The rejection

of  the  prayer  for  de-notification  vide  orders  dated

19.4.2012 was illegal.   

6. It was submitted on behalf of the learned counsel

appearing for DDA that the acquisition was for Planned

Development of Delhi for Freight Complex at Narela, which

could not have been delayed as such invocation of urgency

provision was proper. The Planned Development of Delhi

could  not  have  been  delayed.  Thus,  notification  of

urgency  provision  under  section  17(1)  and  to  dispense

with the inquiry under section  5 A was proper.  While

declining the derequisition of the land reasoned orders

have been passed on 19.4.2012.  No case for interference

is made out on the grounds urged on behalf of the land

owners.   

7. Coming to the invocation of the urgency provision, in

our opinion, when the public purpose of freight complex

at  Narela  under  Planned  Development  of  Delhi  was

involved, obviously, there was urgency and the project

was such that it could not have brooked any delay. Thus,

5

invocation of section 17 was proper. Merely by the fact

that declaration under section 6 was issued in December,

it  could  not  be  said  that  invocation  of  the  urgency

provision  under  section  17(1)  and  17(4)  was  improper.

The  satisfaction  of  Lt.  Governor  as  mentioned  in  the

notification in the facts of the case was not appropriate

considering  the  nature  of  the  requirement.  We  are

satisfied  that  notification  under  section  4  read  with

section 17(1) and 17(4) did not suffer with illegality.    

8. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Union of

India & Ors v. Mukesh Hans etc. 2004 (8) SCC 14.  The

decision cannot be said to be applicable as there was an

earlier  acquisition  which  was  allowed  to  be  lapsed  by

efflux of time.  The authority who dispensed with the

inquiry  was  not  made  aware  of  the  fact,  thus,  the

decision  has  no  application.   Reliance  has  also  been

placed on the decision of this Court in  Anand Singh &

Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2010 (11) SCC 242.

In  the  said  case  the  identification  of  land  was  for

Housing  Colony.  There  was  a  gap  of  one  year  in

declaration under section 6. However, the appellants were

not granted any relief in the facts of the said case.  It

6

was  observed  that  section  17(4)  should  be  invoked  in

appropriate  cases.   There  is  no  dispute  with  the

aforesaid  proposition.  However,  in  the  instant  case

considering the nature of the requirement and facts of the

case, we find that invocation of the urgency clause was

appropriate.   

9. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this

Court in Ramdhari Jindal Memorial Trust v. Union of India

& Ors, 2012 (11) SCC 370.  It was again a residential

scheme which was involved and in the facts of the said

case, this  Court directed the inquiry to be made.  The

decision is of no application to the facts of the instant

case.  Reliance has also been placed on  Narain Govind

Gavate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1977 (1) SCC

133 which rather negates the case of respondents. Be that

as it may, other cases relied upon are Dev Sharan & Ors.

v. State of U.P. Ors. JT 2011 (3) SC 102, State of Punjab

& Anr. v. Gurdial Singh & Anr., 1980 (2) SCC 471,  Hari

Ram & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010 (3) SCC 621,

Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2012 (9) SCC 503.

Each case has to be decided on its own facts. We find

that there was an urgency in the present case and the

7

requirement was urgent as such the provision was rightly

invoked in the case.  

10. In the second round of the litigation the  aforesaid

question  is  being  again  raised,  though  permission  was

sought to withdraw the earlier writ petition with liberty

inter  alia  to  question  the  order  relating  to  de-

notification  and  accordingly,  the  liberty  was  granted.

Facts remain that dilatory tactics have been adopted by

respondents.  There was no formal defect and it was not

appropriate  to  withdraw  writ  petitions  after  so  much

period of 16 years. We are not satisfied on merits with

respect to the submission raised by learned counsel for

the land owners and they have clearly adopted delaying

tactics.  

11. When we come to the question of de-requisition it is

apparent that the order dated 19.4.2012 in the matter of

Swarup  Singh  clearly  indicate  that  the  representation

dated  27.8.2010  was  actively  considered  by  the  De-

notification Committee in its meeting held on 22.7.2011.

The Committee did not recommend the de-notification under

section 48(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the

land was required by the DDA for relocation of Chemical

8

Godowns  and  Development  of  Freight  Complex  at  Narela

under  Planned  Development  of  Delhi  and  the  matter  was

placed  before  the  Lt.  Governor  who  after  due

consideration of the facts has rejected the prayer for

de-notification of captioned land.  Mind has been applied

and considering the necessity, decision has been taken

not to de-notify the land.  The decision is appropriate

and we find no infirmity in the same.  Similar is the

reasoning given in the case of Munnilal & Ors in the

communication dated 19.4.2012. We find no infirmity in

the same also.  

12. Thus, in our opinion, the submissions urged on behalf

of the land owners deserve to be rejected and appeals

deserve to be allowed.  Accordingly, we set aside the

impugned  order  and  allow  these  appeals.   The  writ

petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court

are ordered to be dismissed.  No costs.

  ................J.     (ARUN MISHRA)

................J.             (AMITAVA ROY)

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 21, 2018

9

ITEM NO.1501               COURT NO.10               SECTION XIV (For Judgment)

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).27383/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-11-2014  in WPC No.4650/2012 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                        Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS

MUNNI LAL & ORS.                                 Respondent(s)

WITH SLP(C) No.27389/2015 (XIV)

Date : 21-02-2018  These matters were called on for pronouncement      of Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Binu Tamta,AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy,AOR                      

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Arun  Mishra  pronounced  the

judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble

Mr. Justice Amitava Roy.

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed with no costs in terms of the

signed judgment.   

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

  (Sarita Purohit)                       (Suman Jain)      Court Master                        Branch Officer

(Signed Judgment is placed on the file)