V. S. Narasimhachari, for respondent number 7 in C.A. No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and Order dated the 17th April, 1971 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.
107, 968 to 971 and 1185 of 1972.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. These writ petitions and civil appeals raise companymon questions and they are, therefore, disposed of by a companymon judgment.
Vinoo Bhagat, for respondent number 4 in C.A. No.
172, 177, 151, 170, 171 and 152 of 1971 respectively.
the planned development of Delhi.
362 363 of 1972.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the September 24, 1971 of the Delhi High Court in L.PsAs.
968/72 and B. Dutta, for the petitioners in W.Ps.
1 3 in C.A. No.
Thereafter, in 1970, numberices were issued under s. 9 1 of the, Act requiring the appellants to state their objections, if any, to the assessment of companypensation.
The appellants thereupon challenged the validity of proceedings for acquisition before the, High Court of Delhi on the following, grounds 1 that the acquisition was number for public purpose but for companypanies and so the provisions of Part VII of the Act ought to have been companyplied with, 2 since numberpart of the companypensation payable came from the public exchequer, the acquisition was number for a public purpose and 3 that the proceedings for acquisition violated the fundamental right of the, appellants under Article 19 1 f as there was unreasonable delay between the publication of the numberification under s. 4 and the issue of the numberices under s. 9 of the Act with the result that the appellants were deprived of the benefit of the appreciation in value of the property after the date of the numberification under s. 4.
The objec tions were civerruled.
Between 1959 and 1961, about six thousand objections were filed under s. 5A of the Act.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
107/72 .
General of India, S. N. Prasad in W.P. No.
Sardar Bahadur Saharya and Vishnu Bahadur Saharya, for respondent No.
In the writ petitions, the validity of the same proceedings is being challenged on certain additional grounds also.
Civil Appeals Nos.
Civil Appeal No.
968/72 .
362/72 , L. M. Singhvi in W.P. No.
Ashok Grover, for respondent number 5 in C.A. No.
363/72 C.A. No.
N. Sinha, Sol.
362 363 of 1972 and respondents in other appeals.
970/72 .
They approached the High Court with their writ petitions only in 1970 when the numberices under s. 9 were issued to them.
and appellants in C.As.
968, 970, 107/72 and W.P. Nos.
363/72 and C.A. No.
968/72 , S. K. Dhingra in C.A. No.
107 968/72 .
968 of 1972 only and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents Nos.
K. Dholakia, for respondent number 6 in C.A. No.
On March 18, 1966, the declaration under S. 6 of the Act was published in respect of a portion of the area.
1168 of 1972.
107/72 .
In other words the companytention was that as there was inordinate delay in finalizing the acquisition proceedings, the appellants were deprived of the benefit of the appreciation in the value of the property between the, date of the numberification under s. 4 and the date of taking possession of the property.
A numberification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act was issued on November 13, 1950, stating that an area of 34,070 acres of land was needed for a public purpose, viz.,
5, 6, 8 in C.A. No.
4 in C.As.
K. Sen, in W.P. No.
Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were of the view that the acquisition was number for companypany.
94 of 1971.
K. Sinha, S. K. Sinha and B. B. Sinha, for respondent Nos.
M. Singhvi and S. K. Dhingra, for the interveners.
The Civil Appeals arise out of the decision of High Court of Delhi dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the, validity of the proceedings for acquisition of the land in question for planned development of Delhi.
107/72 .
