Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Rajinder Kishan Gupta & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Sep 8, 2010
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Supreme Court of India
Siège de la cour
New Delhi
Juge
Raveendran, R.
Gokhale, H.
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Questions juridiques, Terre et sols
Mot clé
Régime foncier Propriété étrangère Planification territoriale
Résumé
A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 24.10.1961 to acquire vast chunk of agricultural land for the planned development of Delhi including the lands of the appellants herein situated in Village Mehrauli. Notices were issued by the Collector under Section 9 of the Act on 26.04.1983, after a lapse of almost 22 years from the date of Notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, objections and claims were filed by the appellants on 23.05.1983. Challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings, the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court. On 24.01.2005, this Court, while issuing notice, granted status quo in respect of possession of the land in question. On 07.10.2008, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (DMRC) filed applications for impleadment and vacation/modification of order of status quo on the ground that land admeasuring 26,187 sq. mtr. was required urgently for the construction of Chattarpur Metro Station on Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS. On 17.11.2008, this Court allowed the application for impleadment and clarified that the order of status quo. On 06.06.2009, the Government of NCT of Delhi and Land & Building Department, Govt. of Delhi published a notification under Section 48 of the Act withdrawing its earlier notification for acquisition of land in question and a fresh notification dated 04.06.2009 was published on 07.06.2009 exercising powers under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)(4) of the Act seeking to acquire land of the appellants. Challenging the said notification, the appellants filed W.P. (C) No. 9647 of 2009 before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order dated 08.09.2009 dismissed the petition. Hence the present appeal. The Supreme Court has held that Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (DMRC) has got a right to invoke the “urgency” clause to acquire any land in the metros without undergoing the necessity of inviting objections from aggrieved land owners. The apex court rejected the argument of Rajinder Kishan Gupta, a land owner, that the authorities had no power to invoke the urgency clause, as according to him the acquisition should have been done under the Metro Railway Act which has no such provision. Interpreting the law, the apex court said if any land is required for construction work relating to metro rail in the metropolitan cities, the authorities are free to apply the Metro Railways Act and acquire any land. “But at the same time, there is no specific prohibition in the Metro Railways Act from applying the Land Acquisition Act to acquire any land for a public purpose, more particularly, for the construction work relating to metro railways in the metropolitan cities. Since Section 17 of the Act enables the authorities to dispense with enquiry under Section 5A and to complete the acquisition proceedings without any delay, urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was invoked. While Section 5A mandates the authorities to give due notice and opportunity to the aggrieved land owners to air their objections, Section 17 dispenses with the provision enabling the authorities to acquire the land under for an urgent purpose".
Texte intégral
COU-156228.pdf
Site web
www.indiankanoon.org