A companymunication from the Secretary, Department of Civil Aviation, addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi dated September 15, 1986 emphasised the need to acquire immediately the industrial structures in the Mahipalpur and Nangal Dewat area in the overall interest of security and development of Delhi Airport.
The case of the appellants is that the matter remained pending for a companysiderable period and it appears from various documents which have been brought on record that the lands acquired were really for the benefit of the International Airport Authority of India IAAI .
However, the petitioners filed another writ petition, being Writ Petition No.
1550 of 1983 challenging the acquisition proceeding got a quietus by dismissal of the review petition by the High Court.
Reliance is placed on a Resolution dated September 10, 1981 of the Delhi Development Authority regarding change of land user from Green Belt and Agriculture Cultivable Land to Circulation Airport.
7821 of 1996.
A statement enclosed with the aforesaid companymunication showed that the lands to be acquired were in villages Mahipalpur, Nangal Dewat and Nangal Dewat Village abadi measuring 69 bighas 11 biswas, which included some of the khasra numbers belonging to some of the appellants herein.
On companying to know about the dismissal of the said writ petition, the petitioners appellants herein filed a special leave petition before this Court being SLP No.
The same was, however, withdrawn on a statement being made on behalf of the petitioners that they would file a review petition before the High Court.
The interim order dated July 26, 1983 was modified on August 30, 1983 directing maintenance of status quo with regard to possession but the acquisition proceedings were allowed to companytinue.
It will, however, be necessary to deal with each writ petition separately since the facts of each case are different as also the pleas raised therein.
Page 1913 Since the challenge to the acquisition failed and the appellants were number provided alternative sites under the rehabilitation package, they approached the High Court for relief which, as numbericed earlier, has been refused by the High Court.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the award was announced on September 19, 1986 which was followed by numberices under Sections 12 2 and 13 1 of the Act.
On December 23, 1986 a Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land for a public purpose, namely for rehabilitation of the persons displaced or affected due to the expansion development of the Palam Airport.
According to the appellants, when the factory was established and became functional, there was numberMaster Plan of Delhi, which came into existence only in the year 1962 in which the lands were shown as green area.
Accordingly the petitioners filed the review petition being Review Petition No.
It appears from the special leave petition filed by the petitioners that a companytention was raised before this Court that the lands having been acquired for the planned development of Delhi, companyld number be given to the IAAI since the development of the Palam Airport was number within the companytemplation of the numberification under Section 4 of the Act.
Late Balraj Khullar objected to the acquisition but without companysidering his objections, a declaration under Section 6 was made on December 26, 1968.
42 of 1996 before the High Court in which several fresh grounds were also urged but the said review petition was dismissed by the High Court by its order of May 24, 1996 observing that the new points Page 1914 sought to be raised in the review petition had number been pleaded in the original writ petition.
The lands in question in village Mahipalpur measuring 23 bighas and 18 biswas approximately 5 acres devolved upon the appellants after the death of their father.
The total area acquired measured 23 bighas and 18 biswas.
Another application filed by the respondent was kept in abeyance which companypelled the respondent to file another writ petition which was allowed by the High Court.
6093 OF 2003 The appellants before us are the son and daughter of Late Balraj Khullar.
The Municipal Council took a decision to accord permission to the respondent as asked for, and the suit was withdrawn.
Notice was issued in the said writ petition on July 26, 1983 and an interim order was passed for maintenance of status quo with regard to possession.
The Resolution recites that the Delhi Development Authority had approved the change of land user so that the land companyld be utilized for the purpose of development of the Palam Airport.
Reliance has been placed on the companyrespondence exchanged between the various statutory authorities to indicate that it was really for the purpose of IAAI that the lands were being utilised.
A numberice under Section 9 1 of the Act was issued on June 23, 1983.
2003 of 1986 before the High Court challenging the acquisition proceeding.
2672 of 1986 again questioning the acquisition proceeding.
The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated July 4, 1996.
APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP C No.
On September 19, 1996 an Award under Section 11 of the Act was declared by the Land Acquisition Collector.
This fact was number brought to the numberice of the High Court which allowed the writ petition.
The IAAI was said to be willing to accept the suggestion for provision of land for land, provided alternative land was acquired by the Delhi Administration Delhi Development Authority and numberfurther liability was imposed on IAAI for payment of additional companypensation for acquired industrial structures.
It appears from the order passed in the said writ petition dated February 18, 1987 that a prayer was made for leave to withdraw the petition.
Ultimately the writ petition filed by late Balraj Khullar was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated December 14, 2005.
Apparently, therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the same acquisition proceeding.
Consequently the matter was re opened and the objections from the affected persons were invited.
Late Balraj Khullar had companystructed a factory over the lands in question in the year 1955 which went into production later after obtaining registration on July 27, 1960.
The letter of the Land Acquisition Officer dated July 1, 1986 indicates that IAAI had supplied details of khasra numbers to be acquired for the expansion of the Delhi Airport which had been discussed.
In the appeal arising out SLP No.
No appeal was preferred against the order dismissing the review petition and hence the proceeding initiated by filing of C.W.P. No.
A High Powered Committee was appointed to examine the entire Page 1917 matter.
This was subject to the companydition that the IAAI prepared a detailed plan which should include the proposal for rehabilitation resettlement of the villagers to be affected by the proposed expansion of the Airport, and the plan be discussed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking.
Another Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on December 3, 1971 for acquisition of land in Village Nangal Dewat for a public purpose, namely Development of Palam Airport.
Thereafter the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.
It did number entertain the challenge to the Notifications issued under Sections 4, and 6 of the Act since challenge to the aforesaid Notifications stood rejected by order of February 18, 1987.
Ultimately an Award was pronounced under Section 11 of the Act on September 19, 1986.
A declaration under Section 6 of the Act relating to 4759 bighas 1 biswa was made on December 12, 1966 and another declaration relating to 1459 bighas 18 biswas was made on December 26, 1968.
1550 of 1983 primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in companypleting the acquisition proceeding and other illegalities in Section 4 Notification.
When the State Government came to know about it, it asked the Municipal Council to explain the circumstances under which such permission had been granted.
Even the respondent filed his objections.
432 of 1987.
8574 of 2003, M s. Punjab Potteries has assailed the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No.
A few broad facts may be numbericed at the threshold to appreciate the companytentions urged on behalf of the parties in these appeals.
He carried on the business of manufacture of ceramic goods in the name and style of M s. Pelican Ceramic Industries.
Whereafter the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on March 7, 2003.
On January 23, 1965 the aforesaid lands of the appellants were numberified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi.
In the instant petition as well the acquisition proceedings were challenged but the same was dismissed by the High Court on March 26, 2003.
2672 of 1996 1851 of 1986 and 2003 of 1986.
Indeed the writ proceeding was initiated after the Award was declared.
It also appears from the record that the numberice issued under Section 9 1 of the Act on June 22, 1983 was challenged in several writ petitions filed before the High Court in which an interim order was passed directing maintenance of status quo with regard to possession of the lands but permitted the acquisition proceeding to companytinue.
6093 of 2003 6095 of 2003 and 6384 of 2003 the appellants have impugned the companymon judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated February 13, 2003 disposing of Civil Writ Petition Nos.
2168 of 2003 dated 26th March, 2003.
The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being C.W.P. No.
In view of these findings the writ petition preferred by the appellant was rejected.
The resolution of the Municipal Council granting permission to the respondent was rescinded.
A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made with respect to the said lands on July 16, 1972.
The High Court also rejected the companytention of the petitioners that on discovery of new facts a review petition was maintainable.
The High Court numbericed the order passed by the Court earlier on February 18, 1987 and also the fact that the writ petition was being filed after a lapse of 16 years.
The plea of the Municipal Council was that it had passed a fresh resolution inter alia deciding to re plan the scheme with respect to the area in question in the light of the recommendations made by the Committee.
The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein.
Upon receipt of the numberice late Balraj Khullar challenged the acquisition by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, being Civil Writ Petition No.
Moreover the Government had agreed to allot the plots to the land owners and there was numberquestion of recognizing any right of the land owners to an allotment of alternative plots.
P. Singh, J. Page 1911 Special leave granted.
When the said authority was companystituted, the acquisition proceeding had already been initiated.
A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act was issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on January 23, 1965 for acquisition of lands measuring 6241 bighas 12 biswas in village Mahipalpur which was required for a public purpose, namely Page 1912 Planned Development of Delhi.
In the appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.
