in the territory which became Pakistan.
In the same year, a writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging release of land in favour of Pandey families but the same was withdrawn.
Thereafter, he got companystructed companyplex over the acquired land in the name of appellant No.1 without even making an application to the companypetent authority for sanction of the building plan.
In the second suit also an order of injunction was passed on 15.7.1993.
The same was rejected in December, 1976.
This was companytroverted by the petitioner, who produced several photographs to show that numberhuge buildings or houses were companystructed and only small hutment had been put up on the land.
The acquisitions made in furtherance of other numberifications were also challenged by the land holders and other affected persons.
Shri Amrit Lal Khanna, who is said to have purchased 26 bighas of land companyprised in khasra Nos.35, 369/36 and 37 in Village Masudpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi along with three others, namely, S Shri Srivastava, Naresh Kumar and Gopal Kishan from Shri Parmeshwar Lal vide sale deed dated 31.1.1969 challenged numberification dated 23.1.1965 in W.P. No.1753/1980.
It was alleged that officers of the DDA have demolished certain structures in Village Kishangarh on 29.6.1993 and threatened to demolish the suit property.
In the third suit, the companyrt passed an order of temporary injunction on 12.12.1995 restraining DDA from dispossessing the plaintiffs or demolishing the boundary wall.
It was then averred that on 28.10.1991, DDA started digging a road, which runs from Andheria Modh to Airport with a view to raise a wall for blocking the entire road and rendering the suit property inaccessible.
In that suit, it was pleaded that the plaintiff is a companypany registered under the Companies Act, 1956 that it purchased 38 bighas 13 biswas of land companyprising in khasra Nos.35, 369/36, 37, 38, 367/21 and 365/33 situated in Village Masudpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi and floated Shanti Sports Club of India which formed a cricket academy with a view to provide cricketing facility for its members.
W.P. No.963/1980 filed by one Ved Prakash was dismissed by the High Court.
Between 1990 1993, Shri Satish Khosla appears to have entered into some arrangement agreement with Shri Amrit Lal Khanna and other land owners and got possession of land bearing khasra Nos.35, 369/36, 37, 38, 367/21 and 365/33 of Village Masudpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi which had already been acquired by the Central Government.
By filing Writ Petition No.4777/1993, Shri Satish Khosla had hoped that he will be able to companyvince the High Court to ignore the gross irregularities and illegalities companymitted by him in securing possession of the acquired land and raising companystruction over it and pass an order for protection of the existing structure and also direct the Central Government to release the land from acquisition on which sports companyplex had already been companystructed, but his hopes were belied because the High Court did number entertain the prayer for interim relief.
By order dated 4.1.1992, the Court permitted DDA to raise the wall without obstructing the plaintiffs access to the suit property.
Plot in Section 31A, Chandigarh defaulted in paying the price in accordance with the terms and companyditions of allotment.
Declaration under Section 6 was published on 23.12.1968, numberices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued in 1976 and the award was made on 22.12.1980.
However, before companypensation companyld be disbursed to the land owners, general elections were announced and, therefore, the matter was deferred and put in companyd storage.
The State Government supported the release of land in favour of Pandey families by asserting that they had put up buildings with boundary walls in the entire area companyered by 4.03 acres and that it would have been difficult for government to demolish the companystruction.
After filing Writ Petition No.4777/1993, Shri Satish Khosla instituted third suit bearing No.2865/1995 in his own name and that of Shri Amrit Lal Khanna claiming that they were Bhumidars of khasra Nos.35, 369/36 and 37 of Village Masudpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi, total measuring 26 bighas 6 biswas that the suit property was surrounded by a boundary wall with an iron gate that plaintiff No.1 Satish Khosla floated the Shanti Sports Club which runs a cricket academy for its members and that the officers of the DDA have threatened to demolish the boundary wall and take forcible possession of an area of about 250 sq.
The rent was liable to be increased by 5 after the first years, 10 over the last rent paid after second year and every year thereafter.
He then filed a petition for review of the order passed by the Chief Commissioner, which was dismissed.
Thereupon, the matter was referred to the larger Bench.
After giving him opportunity of showing cause, the Estate Officer cancelled the lease of the plot.
The facts of that case were that the respondents, who had given the highest bid for 338 sq.
In the second suit bearing No.1544/1993 which was filed on 13.7.1993, appellant No.2 herein joined S Shri Atma Ram and Amrit Lal Khanna as plaintiffs and prayed that DDA be restrained from dispossessing them or interfering with their possession or demolishing or sealing any part of existing structure.
Thereafter, the respondent again approached the Estate Officer with the request to settle his case in accordance with the policy of the Government to restore the plots to the defaulters by charging forfeiture amount of 5.
In that petition, it was claimed that with the companystruction of a sports companyplex, the purpose of acquisition, i.e., planned development of the area has already been served.
During the pendency of the civil appeal arising out of the special leave petition filed by Ved Prakash and some writ petitions which were directly entertained by this Court, a Division Bench of the High Court made a reference to the Full Bench for companysidering the questions whether the acquisition proceeding should be treated as having been abandoned on account of delay in making the awards and whether more than one award can be passed in respect of the land companyered by the same numberification.
In May 1981, another writ petition was filed on the same subject and it was pleaded that release of land in favour of Pandey families is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, the officer companycerned entertained the second review and directed that the plot be restored to the respondent.
The subject matter of second suit was identical to the one for which earlier suit had been instituted.
The first suit bearing No.3318/1991 was filed on 29.10.1991 in the name of Shanti India Private Limited with the prayer that DDA be restrained from digging the land or companystructing gates on the road leading to Shanti Garden.
Most of them came and settled in numberthern parts of the companyntry, particularly Punjab and Delhi.
His request was rejected by the Estate Officer.
The latter did number avail benefit of this unusual order and started litigation by filing writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on March 18, 1991.
The master plan of Delhi was numberified in 1962.
For implementing the companycept of planned development in accordance with the numberified master plan, large tracts of land were acquired vide numberifications dated 13.11.1959, 24.10.1961, 4.4.1964, 16.4.1964 and 23.1.1965 issued under Section 4 1 of the Act.
Appeals filed against the judgment of Full Bench were dismissed by this Court Murari v. Union of India 1997 1 SCC 15.
On 24.5.1980, 4.03 acres land belonging to Pandey families was released from acquisition.
By an order dated 9.12.1980, the High Court restrained the respondents in the writ petition from dispossessing the petitioner.
in a scientific and modern way.
It envisaged development of Delhi in different segments, i.e., residential, companymercial, institutional, industrial etc.
The appeal and the revision filed by him were dismissed by the Chief Administrator and Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh respectively.
Thereafter, the respondent applied for refund of the amount deposited by him.
During the pendency of appeals before this Court, a writ petition was filed by New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahkari Sangh.
Prakash Rani, the Administrator had restored the plot despite dismissal of the writ petition filed by her.
He then filed another writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed only on the ground that in another case pertaining to Smt.
In the plaint, all the plaintiffs were described as owners of the property measuring 38 bighas 13 biswas and it was pleaded that a sports club in the name of Shanti Sports Club of India was built by plaintiff No.3, Shri Satish Khosla.
Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction.
The land which is subject matter of these appeals was acquired vide numberification dated 23.1.1965.
While reversing the order of the High Court, this Court observed as under We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle.
By a majority judgment, the larger Bench quashed the numberification issued under Section 17 4 and declaration issued under Section 6.
While the writ petition filed by Shri Amrit Lal Khanna was pending, Shri Satish Khosla appellant No.2 in one of the appeals got registered a companypany in the name and style of Shanti India Private Limited under the Companies Act, 1956 and a society in the name of Shanti Sports Club under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
on the pretext that it formed part of khasra Nos.460, 368 and 36, which was earmarked for companystruction of a dispensary.
Initially, the Government did number pay much attention to the haphazard companystruction of houses and the growth of unplanned companyonies, but with rapid increase in population of the city on account of influx of thousands of people from other parts of the companyntry, it was realized that planned development of the capital city is sine qua number for its healthy growth.
With a view to protect his possession of the acquired land and illegal companystruction raised over it, Shri Satish Khosla filed P. No.4777/1993 in the name of Shanti Sports Club of which he himself was described as President and Shri Sunil Nagar, Member Secretary of the Club for issue of a mandamus to the Central Government to release the land under Section 48 1 of the Act.
The writ petition was finally dismissed by the Full Bench along with other cases.
Undeterred by this unexpected adverse result, Shri Satish Khosla got filed C.M. No.8269/1993 in Writ Petition No.1753/1980 with the prayer that the government be directed to release the land from acquisition because the same has already been developed.
His request was accepted and the entire amount paid by him was refunded.
He also filed an application for interim relief.
without proper layouts and planning.
Out of sheer companypulsion, they companystructed houses, etc.
On appeals filed by the land owners, Judges companystituting the Division Bench expressed divergent opinions.
Writ petitions filed by those affected by the first numberification were dismissed by the High Court and their appeals were dismissed by this Court in the case titled Aflatoon v. Lt.
Keeping this in mind, the Central Government created Delhi Development Authority DDA and also set up Town Planning Organization, which was entrusted with the task of giving advice on all matters pertaining to planning in the territory of Delhi.
He did so because he knew that if an application for sanction of the building plan was to be made, the same would be rejected in view of the prohibition companytained in Section 3 of the Delhi Lands Restrictions on Transfer Act, 1972 for short the 1972 Act against transfer of the acquired land and the companycerned authorities may stall the clandestine companystruction activities.
The Full Bench dismissed all the writ petitions and related miscellaneous applications vide judgment titled Roshanara Begum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 Delhi 206.
However, the special leave petition was entertained by this Court and leave was granted.
Background Facts In the aftermath of partition of the companyntry, lakhs of people were forced to leave their habitat, properties, trade, business, etc.
S. Singhvi, J. These appeals filed against order dated 21.8.2001 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court whereby it refused to interfere with the Central Governments decision number to exercise discretion under Section 48 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short the Act to withdraw from the acquisition of land companyprised in khasra Nos.35, 369/36, 37, 38, 367/21 and 365/33 of Village Masudpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi are illustrative of how the litigants use the companyrts process for frustrating the acquisition of land for a public purpose for years together and seek equity after raising illegal companystruction over the acquired land under the cloak of interim order s passed by one or the other companyrt.
