Mandir S.Sita Ramji @ Shree Sitaramji B Vs. Land Acquisition Collector
Agreement is merely to allot some land out of the 35,000 acres being acquired. It is submitted that the Constitution Bench of this Court has approved such a course of action. 10. In support of this submission, it was also pointed out that the planned development can only be in accordance with the Delhi Development Act and that this permitted the authority to allot land to various co-operative societies for the purposes of development. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. In our view, there is no merit in the challenge to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the acquisition was for the purposes of the society covered by Agreement dated 9th May, 1972. The subsequent Notification is merely a followup of the earlier Notification. The entire acquisition is for ?planned development of Delhi?. To be remembered that Appellants? land is in the midst of the 35,000 acres which have been acquired pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 issued in 1959. The Agreement dated 19th May, 1972 does not specify that it is the Appellants? land which is to be allotted to that Society. The society is to be allotted some land and even if Appellants? land is allotted to this society, after acquisition, it will not mean that the acquisition was for this society. Therefore, the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act need not have been complied with. 12. It was next submitted, on behalf of the Appellants, that the Government has formulated a scheme by which parties are permitted to develop their own land. It was submitted that the acquisition of land of such parties was to be withdrawn as per the policy.In this behalf, reliance was placed upon a letter dated 3rd March, 1987 from the office of the Prime Minister, wherein it is stated that the Appellants may be permitted to develop the land in accordance with the norms given by Delhi Development Authority. Reliance was also placed upon a letter dated 4th April, 1991 from the Director, Delhi Development Authority, to one Shri Acharya Arun Dev (whom the Appellants claim to be their power of attorney holder) wherein also the Appellants? proposal to allot the land to them for development was stated to be approved. Reliance was also placed upon a letter dated 17th September, 1991 from the Additional Secretary to the Minister of Urban Development as well as minutes of a meeting held on 23rd September, 1991 in the chambers of the Lt. Governor to consider the Appellants? proposal to develop the lands themselves. Relying on these documents, it was submitted that the Governments had decided to withdraw from the acquisition. It was submitted that the Government should be held bound by its commitment to so withdraw. It was submitted that for this reason also the acquisition should be quashed. 13. As against this, on behalf of the Respondents, it is pointed out that this very ground had been considered by the Delhi High Court on an earlier occasion. It was pointed out that after looking into the relevant records the Delhi High Court had recorded in paras 18 and 19 of its judgments as follows: "18. It also appears that there was a decision relating to denotification of land in favour of one Sita Ram Bhandar Trust. File thereof had been called for by the Prime Minister who ordered that no land was to be denotified without the previous approval of the Cabinet/Prime Minister. When this file was sent to the Ministry, based on the decision contained in respect of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust, following noting was recorded in respect of the land in question on 17th June, 1999. ?Notes from page 38/N onwards may kindly be seen—The case of Denotification of village Kotla Mahigiran, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi was examined without calling a fresh report up-to-date position of the case from DDA. The then Minister (UD) has ordered (P-41/N) for the denotification of the land. 2. Subsequently, DDA has informed that out of 615 Bighas acquired by the Government physical possession of land measuring 600 Bighas has already been taken over by the DDA. 3. In the meantime the file relating to denotification of land in favour of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust has been called for by the Prime Minister and the PM has ordered that no land is to be denotified without the previous approval of the Cabinet/PM. In view of this no further action is required in this case. Submitted please.? 19. This file was placed before the Minister. It may be mentioned that in the meantime new incumbent had taken charge. This new Minister took the following decision on the basis of aforesaid noting dated 17th June, 1999. ?The file of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust has since been received back from the PMO and PM?s instructions not to denotify the land have been noted. 2. On the Trust?s file, I have recorded my observations. These observations apply in this case as well. There is no justification for denotifying land, particularly when 600 bighas have already been acquired and taken over.? 14. This could not be denied by the Appellants. It is thus clear that letters and minutes relied upon are mere recommendations. No decision to release from acquisition had been taken. In any event the Prime Minister had turned out this proposal. 15. Even otherwise, we have seen the scheme sought to be relied upon. We find from the scheme that it only applies in respect of persons/agencies who own and possess the land. In this case possession of the land had already been taken. The scheme also categorically states that the scheme would not take away the rights of the Delhi Development Authority to acquire for development of Delhi. Thus the scheme was not applicable to lands of the Appellants. Even under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act once possession is taken the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition. We thus see no substance in this contention also. 16.
0[ds]11. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. In our view, there is no merit in the challenge to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the acquisition was for the purposes of the society covered by Agreement dated 9th May, 1972. The subsequent Notification is merely a followup of the earlier Notification. The entire acquisition is for ?planned development of Delhi?. To be remembered that Appellants? land is in the midst of the 35,000 acres which have been acquired pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 issued in 1959. The Agreement dated 19th May, 1972 does not specify that it is the Appellants? land which is to be allotted to that Society. The society is to be allotted some land and even if Appellants? land is allotted to this society, after acquisition, it will not mean that the acquisition was for this society. Therefore, the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act need not have been complied with14. This could not be denied by the Appellants. It is thus clear that letters and minutes relied upon are mere recommendations. No decision to release from acquisition had been taken. In any event the Prime Minister had turned out this proposal15. Even otherwise, we have seen the scheme sought to be relied upon. We find from the scheme that it only applies in respect of persons/agencies who own and possess the land. In this case possession of the land had already been taken. The scheme also categorically states that the scheme would not take away the rights of the Delhi Development Authority to acquire for development of Delhi. Thus the scheme was not applicable to lands of the Appellants. Even under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act once possession is taken the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition. We thus see no substance in this contention also
### Instruction:
Make a prediction on the court's ruling (acceptance (1) or rejection (0) of the petition), and then dissect the proceeding to provide a detailed explanation using key textual passages.

### Input:
Agreement is merely to allot some land out of the 35,000 acres being acquired. It is submitted that the Constitution Bench of this Court has approved such a course of action. 10. In support of this submission, it was also pointed out that the planned development can only be in accordance with the Delhi Development Act and that this permitted the authority to allot land to various co-operative societies for the purposes of development. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. In our view, there is no merit in the challenge to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the acquisition was for the purposes of the society covered by Agreement dated 9th May, 1972. The subsequent Notification is merely a followup of the earlier Notification. The entire acquisition is for ?planned development of Delhi?. To be remembered that Appellants? land is in the midst of the 35,000 acres which have been acquired pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 issued in 1959. The Agreement dated 19th May, 1972 does not specify that it is the Appellants? land which is to be allotted to that Society. The society is to be allotted some land and even if Appellants? land is allotted to this society, after acquisition, it will not mean that the acquisition was for this society. Therefore, the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act need not have been complied with. 12. It was next submitted, on behalf of the Appellants, that the Government has formulated a scheme by which parties are permitted to develop their own land. It was submitted that the acquisition of land of such parties was to be withdrawn as per the policy.In this behalf, reliance was placed upon a letter dated 3rd March, 1987 from the office of the Prime Minister, wherein it is stated that the Appellants may be permitted to develop the land in accordance with the norms given by Delhi Development Authority. Reliance was also placed upon a letter dated 4th April, 1991 from the Director, Delhi Development Authority, to one Shri Acharya Arun Dev (whom the Appellants claim to be their power of attorney holder) wherein also the Appellants? proposal to allot the land to them for development was stated to be approved. Reliance was also placed upon a letter dated 17th September, 1991 from the Additional Secretary to the Minister of Urban Development as well as minutes of a meeting held on 23rd September, 1991 in the chambers of the Lt. Governor to consider the Appellants? proposal to develop the lands themselves. Relying on these documents, it was submitted that the Governments had decided to withdraw from the acquisition. It was submitted that the Government should be held bound by its commitment to so withdraw. It was submitted that for this reason also the acquisition should be quashed. 13. As against this, on behalf of the Respondents, it is pointed out that this very ground had been considered by the Delhi High Court on an earlier occasion. It was pointed out that after looking into the relevant records the Delhi High Court had recorded in paras 18 and 19 of its judgments as follows: "18. It also appears that there was a decision relating to denotification of land in favour of one Sita Ram Bhandar Trust. File thereof had been called for by the Prime Minister who ordered that no land was to be denotified without the previous approval of the Cabinet/Prime Minister. When this file was sent to the Ministry, based on the decision contained in respect of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust, following noting was recorded in respect of the land in question on 17th June, 1999. ?Notes from page 38/N onwards may kindly be seen—The case of Denotification of village Kotla Mahigiran, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi was examined without calling a fresh report up-to-date position of the case from DDA. The then Minister (UD) has ordered (P-41/N) for the denotification of the land. 2. Subsequently, DDA has informed that out of 615 Bighas acquired by the Government physical possession of land measuring 600 Bighas has already been taken over by the DDA. 3. In the meantime the file relating to denotification of land in favour of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust has been called for by the Prime Minister and the PM has ordered that no land is to be denotified without the previous approval of the Cabinet/PM. In view of this no further action is required in this case. Submitted please.? 19. This file was placed before the Minister. It may be mentioned that in the meantime new incumbent had taken charge. This new Minister took the following decision on the basis of aforesaid noting dated 17th June, 1999. ?The file of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust has since been received back from the PMO and PM?s instructions not to denotify the land have been noted. 2. On the Trust?s file, I have recorded my observations. These observations apply in this case as well. There is no justification for denotifying land, particularly when 600 bighas have already been acquired and taken over.? 14. This could not be denied by the Appellants. It is thus clear that letters and minutes relied upon are mere recommendations. No decision to release from acquisition had been taken. In any event the Prime Minister had turned out this proposal. 15. Even otherwise, we have seen the scheme sought to be relied upon. We find from the scheme that it only applies in respect of persons/agencies who own and possess the land. In this case possession of the land had already been taken. The scheme also categorically states that the scheme would not take away the rights of the Delhi Development Authority to acquire for development of Delhi. Thus the scheme was not applicable to lands of the Appellants. Even under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act once possession is taken the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition. We thus see no substance in this contention also. 16.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
11. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. In our view, there is no merit in the challenge to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the acquisition was for the purposes of the society covered by Agreement dated 9th May, 1972. The subsequent Notification is merely a followup of the earlier Notification. The entire acquisition is for ?planned development of Delhi?. To be remembered that Appellants? land is in the midst of the 35,000 acres which have been acquired pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 issued in 1959. The Agreement dated 19th May, 1972 does not specify that it is the Appellants? land which is to be allotted to that Society. The society is to be allotted some land and even if Appellants? land is allotted to this society, after acquisition, it will not mean that the acquisition was for this society. Therefore, the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act need not have been complied with14. This could not be denied by the Appellants. It is thus clear that letters and minutes relied upon are mere recommendations. No decision to release from acquisition had been taken. In any event the Prime Minister had turned out this proposal15. Even otherwise, we have seen the scheme sought to be relied upon. We find from the scheme that it only applies in respect of persons/agencies who own and possess the land. In this case possession of the land had already been taken. The scheme also categorically states that the scheme would not take away the rights of the Delhi Development Authority to acquire for development of Delhi. Thus the scheme was not applicable to lands of the Appellants. Even under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act once possession is taken the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition. We thus see no substance in this contention also
