When the appeal was heard on 07.01.2016, this Court passed the following order Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties for sometime, we feel that certain factual aspects which are critical for the decision of this case are required.
The affidavit shall be filed within six weeks.
Arguments remained part heard.
However, having extensively heard the learned companynsel for the parties, we do number find fit to companytinue the interim order granted by this Court on 15.05.2007.
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 number feasible to proceed with the acquisition.
List the matter on Thursday i.e. 14th January, 2016 as part heard.
4694 of 2002 and other companynected matters.
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.
Hence, the interim order dated 15.05.2007 is vacated.
List the matter on 21.01.2016 as part heard.
Post after six weeks as part heard.
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.
When the matter came up before this Court, by way of interim order dated 15.05.2007, this Court stayed the dispossession.
The affidavit shall be filed within a week.
Therefore, the appellant as well as the companypetent officers of the D.D.A Respondent No.
It will certainly be open to the officers companycerned to companyduct physical verification of the said property before filing the affidavit.
The Delhi Development Authority shall necessarily refer also to the Notification dated 19.01.2007.
KURIAN, J. The challenge in this appeal is the Judgment dated 25.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. C No.
Counsel for the appellant is also free to produce certified companyies of the orders instead of filing the affidavit.
Para 4 of the said affidavit is reproduced below That the joint inspection report has been companysidered by the companypetent 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 observed that acquisition of built up land would involve massive demolition and cause hardships to the occupant of the land.
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.
Thereafter, on 14.01.2016, this Court passed the following order Learned companynsel for the parties do number dispute that the records do number give any indication that the time fixed for passing the Award in terms of the Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, has expired.
