Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5054 OF 2008

M/S. COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD.          Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. The  challenge  in  this  appeal  is  the  Judgment dated 25.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.  (C)  No.  4694  of  2002  and  other  connected matters.   

2. In the impugned Judgment, the High Court upheld the proceedings taken for acquisition of the land on the  ground  that  Section  6  Declaration  (of  Land Acquisition Act, 1894) was within time.  It appears that the appellant herein pursued a Review Petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed.   

3. When the matter came up before this Court, by way of interim order dated 15.05.2007, this Court stayed the dispossession.   

4. When  the  appeal  was  heard  on  07.01.2016,  this Court passed the following order :-

Page 2

2

"Having heard the learned counsel for

the parties for sometime, we feel that

certain  factual  aspects  which  are

critical for the decision of this case

are required.  Therefore, the appellant

as  well  as  the  competent  officers  of

the  D.D.A  (Respondent  No.  5)  are

directed  to  file  an  affidavit  after

verifying the records of the High Court

and  this  Court  stating  clearly  the

period during which any stay operated

in the case of acquisition of property

referred  to  in  this  case  after

08.07.2002.   The  affidavit  shall  be

filed within a week.   

List  the  matter  on  Thursday  i.e.

14th January, 2016 as part-heard.   

Counsel for the appellant is also

free to produce certified copies of the

orders  instead  of  filing  the

affidavit."

5. Thereafter, on 14.01.2016, this Court passed the following order :-

"Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute

that the records do not give any indication

Page 3

3

that the time fixed for passing the Award in

terms  of  the  Section  11  of  the  Land

Acquisition Act, 1984, has expired.   

The  submissions  having  been  made  after

verifying  the  records,  we  do  not  feel

necessary  to  have  any  further  affidavit  in

that regard.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at  

some length.

However,  having  extensively  heard  the

learned counsel for the parties, we do not

find  fit  to  continue  the  interim  order

granted by this Court on 15.05.2007. Hence,

the  interim  order  dated  15.05.2007  is

vacated.  

Arguments remained part-heard.

List  the  matter  on  21.01.2016  as

part-heard."

6. On 21.01.2016, this Court passed the following order :-

"The fifth respondent is directed to file an

affidavit  whether  the  Delhi  Development

Authority  is  keen  on  acquisition  of  the

property which is heavily built up as can be

seen from the photographs produced before the

Court.   It  is  to  be  made  clear  in  the

Page 4

4

affidavit as to what purpose they intend to

use it for.  The Delhi Development Authority

shall  necessarily  refer  also  to  the

Notification dated 19.01.2007.   

It will certainly be open to the officers

concerned to conduct physical verification of

the  said  property  before  filing  the

affidavit.   

The affidavit shall be filed within six

weeks.   

Post after six weeks as part-heard."   

7. An affidavit, accordingly, has been filed by the Principal  Commissioner,  Land  Management,  Delhi Development  Authority  stating  that  in  view  of  the intervening  developments,  it  is  not  feasible  to proceed with the acquisition.  Para 4 of the said affidavit is reproduced below :-

"That the joint inspection report has been

considered by the competent authority and

keeping in view that area is forming part

of Abadi Deh/Lal Dora of village Mehrauli

and being built up at site with monuments,

graveyards,  masjids,  Lal  Masjid,  Aulia

Masjid,  Jahaz  Mahal,  Kanati  Masjid  and

vacant land of about 9 Bigha, it has been

Page 5

5

observed that acquisition of built up land

would involve massive demolition and cause

hardships  to  the  occupant  of  the  land.

Therefore,  it  has  been  decided  not  to

pursue the acquisition proceedings subject

to further orders by this Hon'ble Court.

It is pertinent to mention here that the

Petitioner  is  carrying  out  commercial

activity  at  the  land  in  his  alleged

possession contrary to the permitted land

use.  However, it will be without prejudice

to rights of the respondent to acquire the

same  in  accordance  with  law  if  need  so

arises."    

8. In  that  view  of  the  matter,  it  has  become unnecessary for us to consider this appeal on merits. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the land belonging to the appellant are set aside.  Needless to say, the land stands consequently denotified.  

9. We make it clear that this Judgment shall not stand in the way of the competent authority taking appropriate steps, as referred to in Paragraph 4 of the affidavit, which is extracted above.  

Page 6

6

10. With the above observations and directions, this appeal is disposed of.    

No costs.      .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; May 11, 2016.