1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3278 OF 2012

JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS

WITH  

C.A. NO. 3279 OF 2012  

AND

C.A. NO. 3280 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T

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

2

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 appellant­society 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

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

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 de­notifying the land has already been rejected

and there is no question of de­notification 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  de­notification  of the land and  a  prayer in that regard  has

already been rejected by the appropriate Government. Merely by the

4

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.

…………………………J. (Arun Mishra)

New Delhi; ……..………………….J. October 24, 2019. (S. Ravindra Bhat)