YUDHVIR SINGH & ANR vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DLEHI & ORS
*INTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgmentdeliveredon: 24.01.2024
+ W.P.(C) 11104/2018, CM APPL. 43169/2018-(stay) & CM APPL.
10231/2022-by R-5 (for vacation of stay)
YUDHVIR SINGH& ANR…… Petitionersversus
GOVT. OF NCT OFDELHI & ORS…… RespondentsAND
+ W.P.(C) 320/2018GAJENDER SINGHDRALL AND ORS…… PetitionersversusGOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
….. RespondentsPresent:Mr.DhruvMehta, Sr. Advocate withMs.Smita Maan, Mr.Vishal
Maan, Mr.KeeethVerghese, Mr.AakashSehrawat, Mr.Aditya
Singh and Mr.Jitin Chillar, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, StandingCounselwithMr.SunilKumar Jha, Mr.M.S.Akhtar, Ms.RiniV.Tigga andMs.NidhiThakur, Advocates for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.ManishVashisht,Sr. Advocate withMr.KaruneshTandon,
Mr.RahulandMr.AnuragYadav, Advocatesfor respondentNo.5/DJB.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
J U D G M E N T
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page1of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
ANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J.
Table of Contents
Sr.No.ParticularsPage
No(s).
(I)Brief background3(II)Case set up by the petitioners7(III)Case set up by the respondents10(IV)Contentionson behalf of the petitioners21(V)Contentionson behalf of the respondents27(VI)Rebuttal submissions on behalf of the petitioners37(VII)Findings/Analysis39A.Whetherthe writpetitionspreferredby thepetitionersare barredonthe groundofdelay andlachesoracquiescence orwaiverofrightsby the
petitioners40B.WhethernotificationunderSection11ofRFCTLARRAct, 2013isineffective andinoperative
afterlapse ofRFCTLARR(Amendment) SecondOrdinance, 201556C.Challenge tothe acquisitionproceedingsonthegroundsofurgency, discriminationand malafides69D.Challenge toacquisitionproceedingsonthe
ground ofnon-consideration ofobjections81E.ChallengetonotificationunderSection11ofRFCTLARR Act, 201385F.Challenge toacquisitionproceedingsbeinginviolationofMPD2021, ZDPandDDA’sLandPooling Policy90G.Substantive compliance93(VIII)Conclusion95
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page2of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
(I)BRIEF BACKGROUND
1.The directionsof NationalGreenTribunalvide order datedMay08,2015inManojKumarMishrav. UnionofIndiatothe concerneddepartmentfor settingupofWWTP (Waste Water TreatmentPlant)fortacklingof discharge of waste andtoxic effluentsinYamuna River,
necessitatedthe acquisitionof landindifferent villagesunderthe RighttoFair CompensationandTransparencyinLandAcquisition, RehabilitationandResettlementAct, 2013(hereinafter referredtoasRFCTLARR Act,
2013″).
2.InWrit Petition (C) 11104/2018(Yudhvir Singh and Another v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhiand Others)landof the petitionersinKhasraNo.ll//ll(4-00), 12/2(2-10), 19(4-16), 20(4-16), 21(4-12), 22(4-16), 28(0-
04)and16//2(4-12),totalad-measuring30bighas6biswa,situatedinVillage Tajpur Khurd, Delhiwasnotifiedfor acquisition. Petitionersseekquashingof notificationbearingNo.F.8/2/16/2015/L&B/LA/10643datedAugust28, 2015issuedunder Section11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013andfurtherproceedingsincludingdeclarationunderSection19issuedvidenotificationNo.F.NO.ADM/LAC/SW/2015/921-927datedJuly27, 2017under the said Act.
3.InWrit Petition (C) 320/2018(Gajender Singh Dralland Othersv.
Govt. of NCT ofDelhiand Others),landof the petitionersinKhasra
No.74/21(4-16), 74/22(4-03), 85//2/1(2-08), 85//2/2(2-08) and85//3/1(1-
09)situatedinVillage TikriKalan, NewDelhiwasnotifiedfor acquisition.
Petitionersseekquashingof NotificationbearingNo.F.8/2/15/2015/L&B/LA/10621datedAugust28, 2015under Section
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page3of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
11(1) of the RFCTLARR ActandfurtherproceedingsincludingdeclarationissuedunderSection19vide NotificationNo.F.NO.LAC(W)/MISC./2017/4160datedAugust24, 2017under the saidAct.
4.Atthisstage, itmaybe noticedthatRFCTLARR Act, 2013whichcame intoforce w.e.f.January01, 2014repealedthe LandAcquisitionAct,
1894andprovidedfor rehabilitationandresettlementmechanism”for the
projectaffectedpersonsandtheir families,ondisplacementfromtheacquiredland. The same requiredanassessmentof economic disadvantagesandsocialimpactarisingoutof displacementandaimedatholistic
improvement of allround living standardof the affected personsandfamiliesdue toacquisitionofland, intermsof Chapter II of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013. Asprovidedunder Section9ofthe RFCTLARR Act, 2013, theauthorizedgovernmentmayexemptundertakingof the SocialImpactAssessmentStudy,if the landisproposedtobe acquiredunderthe urgencyprovisionsunder Section40of the saidAct. Also,Section10of the Actdealingwithspecialprovisionstosafeguardfoodsecurity, exemptedtheapplicationof saidprovisionincase of projectsthatare linear innature, suchasthose relatingtoRailways, Highways, major DistrictRoads, IrrigationCanals,Power LinesandLight.ItmayalsobenoticedthatRFCTLARR(SocialImpactAssessmentandConsent)Rules, 2014were notifiedw.e.f.
August 08, 2014under Section109of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
5.On December 31, 2014, the RFCTLARR(Amendment)
Ordinance,2014waspromulgatedbythe Presidentof India inexercise of
the powersconferredbyArticle 123of the Constitutionof India toamendthe RFCTLARR Act, 2013whichinteraliainsertedChapter III-A
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page4of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
empoweringthe Appropriate Governmentfor exemptingcertainprojectsfromprovisions of Chapter-II & IIIof the Act.
Section10Athereinprovidesthatprovisionsof Chapter-II (relatingtodeterminationof socialimpactandpublic purpose) andChapter-III (relatingtospecialprovisionstosafeguardfoodsecurity) maybe exemptedbytheAppropriate Governmentinpublicinterestwithreferencetofollowingprojects:
(a)such projects vital to national securityor defenceof India and everypartthereof, including preparation fordefence; or defenceproduction;
(b)rural infrastructure including electrification;
(c)affordable housing and housing for the poor people;
(d)industrial corridors; and
(e)infrastructureand social infrastructureprojects including projectsunder public private partnership wheretheownership oflandcontinues to vest with the Government.
6.Thereafter,theRFCTLARR (Amendment)BillwasintroducedonFebruary24, 2015inthe House of thePeople toreplace the 2014OrdinanceandwaspassedwithamendmentsonMarch10, 2015inthe HouseofPeoplebut could notbe passed by Councilof States.
In view of above, RFCTLARR(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 waspromulgated bythePresident of Indiaon April03, 2015wherebytheChapter-IIIAasreferred in the earlier Ordinancewasretained.
Further, aprovisowasintroduced which provided thatAppropriate
Government shallbefore the issue of notification exemptingthe projectsfromapplication of Chapter-IIand Chapter-IIIof the RFCTLARRActensure that extent of land for proposed acquisition isthe bare minimum
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page5of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
land required for such projects. Also,sub-section 2of Section 10Aof
the Ordinance providedthat the Appropriate Government shallundertake asurveyof itswastelandincludingaridland and maintainarecord containingdetailsof such landsin amannerasmaybeprescribed by the Appropriate Government.
7.The RFCTLARR Act(Amendment) SecondBill, 2015wasintroducedinthe House of People onMay11, 2015andreferredtoJointCommittee oftheHouse. Inorder togivecontinued effect totheprovisionsof
RFCTLARR(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, the President of Indiainexercise of powersunder Article 123of the Constitution of Indiapromulgated RFCTLARR(Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015onMay30, 2015. Byvirtue of repealandsavingclause, itwasprovidedthattheRFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015isherebyrepealedandfurther notwithstandingsuchrepealanythingdone oranyactiontakenundertheprincipalActasamendedbyRFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance,
2015shallbe deemedtohave beendone or takenunder the principalActasamendedbythisOrdinance. The RFCTLARR(Amendment) Second
Ordinance, 2015 finallylapsed on August 31, 2015.
8.Apartfromother groundsinteralia,challengingthe acquisitionproceedings,the mainplankof the petitionersisthatthe LandAcquisitionproceedingsinitiatedvide issue of notificationunder Section11ofRFCTLARR Act, 2013byinvokingSection10A(1)(e)ofRFCTLARR
(Amendment) SecondOrdinance, 2015withoutcomplyingwithprovisionsrelatingtoSocialImpactAssessmentunderChapter IIandIIIofRFCTLARR Act, 2013couldnotbe continuedinviewof lapsingof theRFCTLARR (Amendment) SecondOrdinance on August 31, 2015.
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page6of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
9.Atthe requestof thecounselfor the petitionersandasagreedbythe
counsel for the respondents,Writ Petition (C) No.11104/2018-Yudhvir Singh&. Another v. GNCTD& Othersistreatedasa leadcase.The date ofnotificationunder Section11of RFCTLARR Act, 2013inboththecasesisAugust28, 2015butthedeclarationunder Section19of theRFCTLARR
Act, 2013wasissuedondifferentdates{(i.e.July27, 2017inWP(C)
11104/2018andAugust24, 2017inWP(C) 320/2018)}.Similar legalcontentionshavebeenraisedinboththe casesexceptthatDJB (DelhiJalBoard) isnota partyinW.P.(C) 320/2018-Gajender SinghDrallandOthers
v. Govt. of NCTof DelhiandOthersandthere isnoreductionof proposedlandof acquisition insaidproceedings.
(II)CASE SET UP BYTHE PETITIONERS
10.As per the case of thepetitioners,preliminary notification issued under
Section11of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, invokingSection10A(1)(e) of the
RFCTLARR (Amendment) SecondOrdinance, 2015isineffective andinoperativeonlapse of OrdinanceonAugust31, 2015andtheproceedingscouldnothave beencontinuedinfurtherance thereof. Reliance insupportofthe contentionsisplaceduponthe ConstitutionBenchjudgmentof theHon”ble Supreme Courtof IndiainKrishnaKumarSingh andAnotherv.
State of Bihar and Others,(2017) 3 SCC 1.
11.Itisfurther the case of the petitionersthatthe identification of the landbythe respondentswasbehindthe backof private landownersandtheprocessandprocedure foridentificationof proposedlandidentifiedforacquisitionisunknowntoall. The landisstatedtohave beenidentified
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page7of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
contrarytoproposedlocationofSTPsasper Sewerage MasterPlan(SMP-
2031), MPD-2021 and Zonal Development Plan (ZDP).
12.Further, thelandidentifiedbyrespondentNo.5for proposedacquisitionwasinitially51bigha 07biswawhichincludedlandadmeasuring30bigha 06biswa ownedandpossessedbythe petitioners, and21bigha 01
biswa ownedandpossessedbya private companynamelyM/s. AlliedRealtyPvt.Ltd. However, the requirementwassubsequentlyreducedfrom51bigha
07biswa to30bigha 06biswaandonlythe landofthe petitionerswasincludedwhile the landownedbyPrivate Companywasexcludedforobliquereasons. Thisreductioninlandisstatedtobe withoutanyjustificationandwasdonetofavourthe saidPrivateCompanyandpetitionersstooddiscriminated.
13.Itisfurther statedthatpursuanttorepresentations/complaintsfiledbythe petitioners, DelhiJalBoard(respondentNo. 5) decidedtocarryoutaVigilance Inquiry. RespondentNo.5 alsocalleduponthe petitionerstoparticipate inthe Vigilance InquiryandpetitionersfiledtheirreplydatedJuly12, 2017tothe queriesraisedduringthe inquiry. Thecopyof therepresentationdatedJune 08, 2017, letterdatedJuly07, 2017, notice/replydatedJuly12, 2017andnoting-sheetdatedAugust24, 2017made byCEOare alsoreliedbythepetitioners. Itisfurther the case of the petitionersthatduringthe saidinquiry,itwasrevealedthatnoting-sheetdatedAugust24,2017made byCEO,DelhiJalBoardreflectsthatafter the reductionof thetotalarea demand, Member (DR), Departmentof Land(EE)didnotdiscussthe selectionof the landwiththe superiorsandonlyafter the complaintfiledbythe petitioners, Member (DR) reviewedtherequirementoflandfor theproposedprojectandonce againmade a preliminaryobservationthatinstead
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page8of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
of 30bigha, 50bigha of landwouldbe required. Further, toascertainthe
exactrequirementfor the saidpurpose, DelhiJalBoard(respondentNo.5)
constitutedanExpertCommittee anditwasdecidedthatif the Committeeproposes50bighaoflandthenrespondentNo. 5Departmentwouldgoforacquisitionforadditional20bigha of remainingland. Also,noting-sheetdatedOctober 06, 2017bythe Minister of Revenue revealedthatthe
VigilanceDepartmentofDelhiJalBoardconcludeditsinquirywiththerecommendationstoinitiate major penaltyproceedingsagainstthefourofficialsof DelhiJalBoardfoundresponsible for the lapses. Indisregardtotherepresentationsof thepetitionersandignoringthe findingsof the
Vigilance Inquiry, the authoritiesobtainedapprovalfromthe CompetentAuthorityfor issuance of declarationunder Section19of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013.
The same wasfollowedbya noting-sheetdatedOctober 30, 2017by
the Hon”ble Lt. Governor (respondentNo.2) statingthatthe entire processof
landacquisitionshouldbe conductedina transparentmanner asper lawandif anylapseshave beenfoundonthe partof the officialsof DelhiJalBoard,
disciplinaryactionshouldbe takenagainstthem. Further, asthe issue astohowmuchlandisrequiredfor the proposedprojectisstillpending before theExpertCommittee, therefore,before takinganyaction, itwouldbe advisableto wait for the report of the Committee.
14.Itisfurtherthe case of the petitionersthatthe landownedbythe saidPrivateCompanyfallsinthe facilitycorridor asper the provisionsof MasterPlanforDelhi2021andtheZonalDevelopmentPlanandthesameisthevacantlandeasilyavailable foracquisitionfor the allegedpublic purpose.
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page9of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
Onthe other hand,the landinquestionownedandpossessedbythe
petitioners,fallsoutside the utilitycorridor andthe usage thereof hasbeenspecificallyprovidedas’Residential’ inthe ZonalDevelopmentPlanforZone K.
15.Itisalsosubmittedthatthoughthe hearingnoticewasissuedtothepetitionersandhearinggrantedbutthe objectionsfiledonbehalfof thepetitionersinresponse tothe notificationunder Section15ofRFCTLARR
Act, 2013 were dismissedwithout any application of mind and reasoning.
16.Further, onone hand, the acquisitionissoughttobe made underemergency,deprivingthe landownersof statutorybenefitsof Chapter-II andIII of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and on the other hand, the extensionof timewasconsideredfor issuance of declarationunder Section19bysixmonthsatthe requestof requisitioning department.
17.Itisalsostatedthatthoughthe compliance withthe provisionspostdeclarationunder Section19of the Actispendingbutnotificationunder
Section25of theActwasissuedextendingthe time for makingthe award.
The entireacquisitionproceedingsarestatedtobe vitiatedbymalafide,
arbitrariness and discrimination.
(III)CASE SET UP BYTHE RESPONDENTS
18.Onthe other hand, respondentshave putforthfactualpositionwithdetailedlistof datesinW.P.(C) 11104/2018, whichmaybenoticed,forappreciatingthe stand of the respondents:
(i)Inthe lightof Order datedMay08, 2015passedbythe NationalGreenTribunal, PrincipalBenchatNewDelhiinOANo.06/2012andOANo.300/2013titledasManojKumar
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page10of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
Mishrav. Union of Indiafor settingupof waste water
treatmentplants(WWTP), for effectivelytacklingthe problem
of dischargeofwaste,DelhiJalBoard(RespondentNo.5)
requestedthe PrincipalSecretary, L&B Department,
GNCTD/RespondentNo.1 toacquire land in seven villagesincludingVillage Tajpur Khurd, Delhiand Village TikriKalan, Delhiunder emergencyclause. ItwasmentionedthereinthatDJB firsttriedtogetthe GaonSabha landallottedfromGNCTDbutthesame wasnotavailable/sufficientfor saidprojectsand, thus,privatelandwasidentifiedwiththehelpofDC (SW) office. Inthe annexure totherequisitionletter, the
area of landinVillage Tajpur Khurdwasreflectedas51bigha
07biswa. Inthe meantime, the RFCTLARR (Amendment)
SecondOrdinance, 2015waspromulgatedbythePresidentof
India onMay 30, 2015.
(ii)The matter remained under correspondence andconsiderationofGNCTDaswellasMHA, Governmentof India for issuingcorrigenduminthe notificationconferringpower ofAppropriateGovernmentonLieutenantGovernorsince theCentralGovernmentistheAppropriate Governmentinrelationtoacquisitionof landsituatedwithina UnionTerritory”(exceptPudducherry) andinadvertentlyinthe notificationissuedbytheCentralGovernment, ithadbeenmentionedasState
Government”. Also, there appearedtobe some reservationsofrespondentsthatrequisitionofDJB wasnotstrictlycoveredfor
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page11of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
acquisitionof landunder provisionsof Section40of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which deals withurgency clause.
(iii)OnJune 19, 2015DJB sentrequisitionfor acquiringlandforsettingSTPs/SPSsbyDJB invariousvillagesincompliance ofdirectionsof NGT. OnJune 23, 2015DeputySecretary,
LA/L&B Department, GNCTDinformedthe concernedLACsthe schedule for a jointsurveyof the landsoughttobe acquiredindifferentvillagesincludingTajpur Khurd, DelhiandfurtheronJune 30, 2015jointsurveyof landwasconductedinthreevillagesincludingvillage Tajpur Khurd.
(iv)Thereafter,on July17, 2015as perDJB, the requirement of landinvillage Tajpur Khurdwasreducedfrom51bigha and07biswa to 30 bigha 06 biswa asper the opinion of M/sEngineersIndia Limited-the projectmanagementconsultant”,appointedbyDJB. The piece of landof petitionersisstatedtohave beenchosenbythe respondent-DJB keepinginviewthatthe landiscontinuousandof regular shape andintermsof the opinionof
theofficialsandrevenuestaff, itiseasier totackle withminimum number of persons whose landis tobe acquired.
(v)OnJuly20, 2015withreferencetoletter datedJune19, 2015byDJB, the DeputySecretary, L&B, GNCTDinformedDJB thatthe proposaldidnotqualifyunder urgencyclause”asspecifiedunder Section40of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013,since the samewasapplicable onlytoproposalsspecifiedinSection40(2)ofthe Act. Thus, detailedinformationonlandrequiredvillage-
wise, khasra no. andarea-wise alongwithcoordinates, mapof
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page12of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
thelandrequiredandnumber ofpersonstobeaffectedbythe
proposedacquisition,wassoughttobe clarified. DJB wasalsoaskedtoclarifywhether the projectisqualifiedasinfrastructure
projectasspecifiedunder Section10A(1)(e) of the Ordinance,
alongwithproper justificationandthatthe proposedlandrequiredfor acquisitionisbare minimumlandfor executingtheproject.
(vi)Inthe meantime, thenotificationNo.2740(E) dated21.10.2014regardingdelegationof power toAppropriate GovernmentwasamendedbynotificationNo.2004(E) dated21.07.2015,bysubstitutingthe wordsAppropriateGovernment”for the wordsState Government”.
(vii)OnAugust13, 2015,DJB issueda lettertoPrincipalSecretary,
L&B givinga detailedinformationonthe landtobe acquiredinterms of the clarification earlier soughtbythem.
(viii)Thereafter,vide note datedAugust22, 2015oftheL&BDepartment, the draftpreliminarynotificationunder Section11of theActwasputupfor approvalof thecompetentauthorityalongwithrelevantdetailsinthe note andstatingthatthe landproposedtobe acquiredinthe saidvillagesisbare minimum
andproposedtobe acquiredunder Section10A(1)(e) of theRFCTLARR (Amendment) SecondOrdinance datedMay30,
2015. Further, theproposedacquisitionwouldbe exemptedfromapplicationof the provisionsofChapter-II(determinationof socialimpactandpublic Purpose andChapter III (specialprovisionstosafeguardfoodsecurity) of the RFCTLARR Act,
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page13of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
2013. ItwasalsomentionedthatADM (SW) willbe the
Administrator under Section43(1) of theActfor rehabilitationandresettlementof displacedpersonsdue toacquisitionof saidland. After vettingof the draftnotificationsandsuitableamendments,the same were putupforthe approvalofthe
competentauthorityonAugust26, 2015.Afterconsiderationanddue applicationof mind, the approvalisstatedtohave been
grantedbythe DeputyChief Minister andHon”ble Lt. Governor
of DelhionAugust28, 2015.
(ix)The preliminarynotificationunderSection11of the Actnotifyingthe landmeasuring30bigha06biswa invillageTajpur Khurdfor purpose of constructionof waste water
treatment plantwasissuedonAugust28, 2015.
(x)Similar separate notificationsarestatedtohave beenissuedsimultaneouslyfor other villages, namely, Kakrola (11bigha 15biswa), Kair (9bigha 12biswa), Kazipur (4bigha 16biswa),
TikriKalan(15bigha 04biswa) andBijwasan(2bigha 11biswa) (2150sqm).
(xi)The notificationinrespectof Village Tajpur Khurdundersection11isstatedtohave beengotpublishedintwolocalDelhinewspapersone inEnglish(HindustanTimes) andone inHindi (Navbharat Times).
(xii)The RFCTLARR (Amendment) SecondOrdinance lapsedonAugust31, 2015.
(xiii)OnOctober 05, 2015, thepetitionersarestatedtohave filedobjectionsunder Section15of the Actfollowedbya reminder
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page14of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
datedOctober 19, 2015. Vide hearingnotice datedDecember
11, 2015, the petitionerswere directedtoappear before the
District Magistrate (DM) for hearing onDecember 21, 2015.
(xiv)Further, inthe meantime, on18.12.2015, RFCTLARR
(Compensation, RehabilitationandResettlementandDevelopmentPlan)Rules, 2015werenotifiedbythe CentralGovernmentinexerciseof powersunder Section109of the Actand published in the Gazette of India.
(xv)OnDecember 22, 2015, DM recordedthe pointsfor
determinationandonthe requestof the petitioners, thematterwasfixedfor hearingfor January05, 2016whichwasfinally
closed onJanuary28, 2016.
(xvi)Further, after consideringthe objections,the DM(SW)/LAC
submittedhisreportunder Section15(2) ofthe Actontheobjection received against the acquisitionproceedings in Village
Tajpur Khurdfor infrastructure projecti.e. constructionof
Waste water treatmentplanttherebyrejectingthe objectionsfiledbythe petitionersfindingnomeritandthus,
recommendingacquisitionof the notifiedlandmeasuring30bigha 06 biswa.
(xvii)Thereafter, the reportof the DM(SW)/LAC wasputupforconveyingthe recommendationsonthe objections,tothe
AppropriateGovernment”together withrecordof proceedingsfor approval and the file was senttothe Deputy Chief Minister.
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page15of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
(xviii)OnApril26, 2016, the Administrator”under the Actconducteda jointfieldsurvey/inspectionof proposedacquiredlandwithfieldstaff in village Tajpur Khurd, Delhi.
(xix)OnMay25, 2016, the Administrator”under the Act,issuedPublic Notice withcopyof the same tothe petitioners/affectedpartiesfor the purposesof rehabilitationandresettlementandrequireda reportregardingthe landownersunder Section16(1)
of the ActandJune 17, 2016wasfixedfor public hearingandfieldsurvey.
(xx)OnAugust22, 2016, uponreceiptandconsiderationof proposalreceivedfromconcerneddistrictfor extensionof time forissuance of declarationunder section19of the Act, the
CompetentAuthorityextendedthe time for issuance of
declarationunderSection19ofthe Actbya periodofsix(06)
monthsintermsof Section19(7) of theActvide notificationdatedAugust22, 2016. The same wasdulynotifiedandpublished as per the statutory requirements by allmodes.
(xxi)The ADM/Administrator (RR) under the RFCTLARR Act,
2013prepareda detailedreportforRehabilitationandResettlementScheme underSection16of the Act. The reportwaspreparedunder variousheads, namely, preface, particularsof landsandimmovablepropertiesbeingacquiredof eachaffectedfamilies, Listof Trees, building,other immovable
propertyor assetsattachedtothe landor buildingtobe
acquired, listof affectedfamilies(includingtenantsontheland)
withAadhar No. (ifavailable), name ofmembersofaffected
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page16of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
families, livelihoodlostinrespectof landlosersandlandlesswhose livelihoodsare primarilydependentonthe landbeingacquired, listof public utilities and Government buildings whichare affectedor likelytobe affected, where resettlementofaffectedfamiliesisinvolved, detailsof the amenitiesandinfrastructuralfacilitieswhichare affectedor likelytobe
affected, where resettlementof affectedfamiliesisinvolved,
details of anycommonpropertyresources beingacquired, listof
displacedfamilieswithAadhar Noof itsmembersif available,
consultationwithGramPanchayat/GramSabha andRehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme.
(xxii)OnDecember 13, 2016, Dy. Secretary(LA), L&B/GNCTDrequestedthe LAC (SW) toexpeditethe matter sothatnotificationunder Section19of the Actmaybe issuedwithinthe time.
(xxiii)OnJanuary11, 2017&January14, 2017,the proposalfor
approvalof the ReportoftheDM(SW)/LAC wasresubmittedbyD.C.(HQ) for approvalof the Appropriate Governmenti.e.
Hon”ble Lt.Governor of Delhi. The Chief Secretary/GNCTDreturnedthe file onJanuary14, 2017seekingcertainclarifications.
(xxiv)OnJanuary19, 2017, withreference toThe RFCTLARR
(Compensation, RehabilitationandResettlementandDevelopmentPlan)Rules, 2015, theDy. Secretary(LA),
L&B/GNCTDrequestedthe DM(SW) toprocessfurther for theacquisition proceedings as per the Rulesof2015.
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page17of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
(xxv)OnFebruary07, 2017, the DM/LAC requestedthe DJB toimmediatelydepositthe totalamountof Rs.13,02,91,667/-
(includingRs.6,69,12,500/-for village Tajpur Khurd) for thecostof landacquisitioninfivevillagessothatthe processisnotdelayed.
(xxvi)OnFebruary15, 2017, the petitionerssubmittedrepresentationstothe Hon’ble LG, DeputyChief Minister, Revenue Minister ofDelhi andDivisionalCommissioner allegingthe following:
(a) Initiallya totallandmeasuring51bigha 07 biswaswasidentifiedfor acquisitionwhichincludedlandmeasuring30bigha 06 biswasof the petitioners.However, landmeasuring21bigha 01 biswa of AlliedRealtyPvt.Ltd.
was left out from the Notification.
(b) Acquisitioniscontrarytothe provisionsof MPD-2021
and Zonal Development Plan.
(c) The landinquestiondoesnotfallinplace where theWWTP canbe setupandthere ismore thansufficientvacantland in two places.
(d) The proposedacquisitiondefeatsthepurpose of landpoolingpolicy.
(xxvii)OnFebruary22, 2017, uponreceiptandconsiderationof the
proposalfromconcerneddistrictfor extensionof time for
issuance of declarationunder Section19of the Act, the
CompetentAuthorityextendedthe time for issuance of
declarationunderSection19ofthe Actbya periodofsix(06)
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page18of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
monthsintermsof Section19(7) of theActvide notificationdatedFebruary22, 2017. The same wasdulynotifiedandpublished as per the statutory requirements by allmodes.
(xxviii)Vide detailednote datedMay25, 2017, the DM/LAC(SW),
Delhiprovidedthenecessarydetailsregardingtheobjectionsofthe petitioner asalsothe clarificationassoughtfor bythe ChiefSecretaryvidenote datedJanuary14, 2017andsubmittedthefile for approvalof the recommendationofthe recommendationof theCollectorfor the acquisitionof thenotifiedlandfor theprojectandforpublicationofdeclarationunder Section19ofthe Actalongwithsummaryof theRehabilitationandResettlement Scheme.
The saidnote wasthereafter putuponJune 02, 2017forapprovalof the Appropriate Government/CompetentAuthority
i.e.Hon”ble Lt.Governor Delhi. After due considerationandapplicationof mind,theapprovalwasgrantedbythe Hon”bleLt. Governor of Delhi onJune 09, 2017 asper the proposal.
(xxix)OnJuly20, 2017, DJB submitteda cheque bearingNo.560403datedJuly20, 2017foraSumof Rs.6,69,12,500/-drawnonCorporationBank,JhandewalanBranch, NewDelhitotheCollector DistrictSouthWesttowardsthe costof landfor
constructionof WWTP in Village Tajpur Khurd.
(xxx)OnJuly27, 2017, a Declarationwasmade under Section19(1)
of the Acttherebyacquiringthe landinquestionfor the purposeof settingupof Waste Water TreatmentPlant(WWTP). Itwas
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page19of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
recordedthatthere wasnofamilywhichwastobe resettledandalsothatthePetitionersweretheland-ownersbutnotthefarmers.
(xxxi)OnAugust08, 2017, the petitionersinsteadof assailingor
challengingthe acquisition, againmade representationstotheHon’ble LG, CEO/DJB andDivisionalCommissionerfor
leaving the adjoiningland.
(xxxii)After issuance ofdeclarationandRehabilitationandResettlementnotificationunder Section19oftheAct, theCollector proceeded, inter alia, towardsascertainingthemarketvalue of the acquiredlandbycallingrequisite informationrelatingtosalefromthe concernedSubRegistrarfor the
purpose of makingthe requisite awards.
(xxxiii)OnNovember09, 2017, vide UOletter/note datedNovember
08, 2017(receivedonNovember 09, 2017inthe office of theDM(SW)/Collector), theSecretarytoMinister conveyedtotheSecretaryRevenueandDM(SW)/Collector Delhithe
instructionsof Hon”ble Lt. Governor ofDelhifor DelhiJalBoardandRevenue Departmentalongwithnotingpartof CDNo.000440853containingthe saidinstructionsinthe subjectmatter onthe complaints made by the petitioners.
(xxxiv)Since the requisitioningdepartmenti.e.DelhiJalBoardhadrequestedfor some more time for decidingthe elementsofrehabilitationandresettlemententitlementfortheprojecttoaffectedfamiliesasprovidedunder secondschedule of the Act,
proposalwas sent byDistrict(SouthWest)for extension of time
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page20of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
for makingAwardunder Section25oftheAct.Uponconsiderationof thesaidproposalthe CompetentAuthorityextendedthe time for makingthe awardunder Section25ofthe
Actbya periodof six(06) monthsvide notificationdatedJuly25, 2018andthesame wasdulynotifiedandpublishedasper
the statutory requirementsby all modes.
(xxxv)OnOctober 10, 2018, petitionersfiledthe writpetitionchallengingthe acquisitionof landinVillage Tajpur Khurd.
Vide order datedOctober 15, 2018, thisCourtgrantedaninterim injunctioninfavour of the petitioners.
(IV)CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
19.Learnedcounselfor thepetitionerssubmitsthatvalidityof impugnedacquisition proceedingsistobe tested on followingprinciples:
A.Anycompulsory acquisition must standbythe rigours of Article300A of the Constitution and has tocompulsorily beinaccordance with law.
B.Impugned acquisition initiated under RFCTLARR Act, 2013,
which stipulates a schemeof both pre and postacquisitionsafeguards to ensure the process to befair, transparent,
participative& justice oriented.
C.Theacquisition basedon principleofeminent domain iscompulsory/unavoidableand only protection available is thatofprocedure.
D.Being an expropriatory legislation, everyprovision/procedure to
be construed &applied strictly & very stringently.
Itisurgedthatthe acquisitionproceedingsinitiatedbyrespondentsfailedtoqualifythe aforesaidtestsastheproceedingsare neither fair nortransparentandpetitioner waskeptoutofexercise of identificationof land
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page21of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
for acquisition. The proceduralrigoursare statedtohave beenignoredbyrespondentsandacquisitionhasbeenundertakenignoringthe availabilityof
other land.
20.Itisurgedthatpreliminarynotificationissuedunder Section11of theRFCTLARR Act, 2013aswellasSection10Aof the Ordinance isineffective andinoperative postthe expiryof the Ordinance andproceedingscannotbecontinuedinfurtherance thereofandisnotsaved. Further, actionsandtransactionspendinginpipeline or evenconcludedactionstakenundertheRFCTLARR (Amendment) SecondOrdinance, 2015doesnotsurvive,
post ceasingof Ordinance onAugust31, 2015.
RelyinguponobservationsinKrishnaKumarSingh andAnotherv.
State of BiharandOthers(supra). Itisurgedthatthe concurringviewoftheBenchwasthatthe natureof power invokedfor issuingof Ordinancesdoesnotadmitof creationof anyenduringrightsinfavour of those affectedbysuchOrdinances.Further, asper observationsof Hon”ble Mr. JusticeMadanB. Lokur, whenanOrdinanceceasestooperate, allactionsinthepipeline onthe date itceasestooperate willterminate andpipeline actionscannotcontinue. Itisalsosubmittedthatneither anypendingactionortransactionnor anyconcludedactionor transactioncansurvive beyondthedate of expiryof anOrdinance andactions/transactionsunder anOrdinance
donot continue beyondthe life of the Ordinance.
Itisfurther submittedthatfor actionstakenor concludedunder anOrdinance, tocontinue after ithaslapsed,a savingclauseisrequiredandnoexpressprovisionhasbeenmade inArticle 123andArticle213of theConstitutionof Indiafor savingof rights, privileges, obligations, liabilities
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page22of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
whichhave arisenunder anOrdinancewhichhasceasedtooperate. Itisemphasizedbyhimthatinthe absence of a savingclause,the ConstitutionofIndia doesnotattachanydegree of permanence toactionsortransactionspendingor concluded duringthe currencyof Ordinance.
Further, relyinguponobservationsofHon”ble Mr. Justice D.Y.
Chandrachudinaforesaidjudgmentinparas133.2-135, itisurgedthatenduringrightstheorywhichhadbeenappliedinEnglishdecisionstotemporarystatuteswaswronglybroughtinwhile construingthe effectof anOrdinance whichhasceasedtooperate.Itispointedoutthatthere isafundamentalfallacyinequatinganOrdinancewitha temporaryenactmentandthenatureof power invokedforissuanceof Ordinancesdoesnotadmitof creationof anyenduringrightsinfavourofthose affectedbysuchOrdinances. Attentionisalsodrawnto para 4, 56, 63 to73, 133to 135, 136,
137, 145 & 146 of the judgment.
Referringto para 132of the judgment, itiscontendedthatSection 6 ofGeneralClausesActprotectsandcontinuesrightsandliabilitiesonlyincase
of repealof anenactmentandSection6of GeneralClausesActdoesnotcome tothe rescueof the respondentincase of anOrdinance, asanOrdinance lapses/ceasestooperate whenithasfailedtoobtainthe legislativeapproval,whereasrepeal”takesplace throughlegislation. Reliance is
further placeduponPunjabNationalBankv. Union of India&Ors.,2022SCC OnLine SC 227.
Referringtopara 71-73and148of the saidjudgment, itiscontended
thatasper viewsof Hon”ble Mr. Justice MadanB. Lokur, noteven
irreversible effectorpublic interestor constitutionalnecessitytheoryisapplicable. Further inholdingtherelief,the Courtwoulddetermine whether
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page23of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
undoingwhathasbeendone under theOrdinancewouldmanifestlybe
contrary to public interest or constitutional necessity.
21.Learnedcounselfor the petitionersreferringtoAlokAgrawalv. StateofChattisgarh, W.P.(C)No.1401/2015decidedon 03.11.2017contendsthatthetheoryof irreversibilitycannotbe appliedinthe presentcase asawardisyettobe passed. Itispointedoutthatthe HighCourtof Chattisgarhthereinquashedthenotificationissuedunder Section11of 2013ActreadwithSection10Aof Ordinance followingthe judgmentinKrishnaKumarSingh
v. State of BiharandOthers(supra)andheldthatsucha notificationwouldstandlapsedonthe date uponwhichthe Ordinance ceasedtooperate, asthesituationhasnotbecome irreversibleandonlynotificationunder Section11(1)oftheActof2013hadbeenissued. Further, since neither awardhadbeenpassednor possessionhadbeentakenfromthe petitioners, theprovisionsof Chapter-II andChapter-III oughttohave beencompliedwithbythe Appropriate Governmentandwithoutfollowingthe saidprovision,
the acquisitionof the petitioners’ landisunsustainable and badin law.
22.Itisfurthercontendedthatthe preliminarynotificationunder Section11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013issine qua nonof acquisition andconditionprecedentto exerciseof further powersunder the Act. Itisurgedthatonce
the notificationunder Section11readwithSection10A(1)(e) of theRFCTLARR (Amendment) SecondOrdinance, 2015doesnotsurvive due tothe lapse of the Ordinance, the proceedingstakenthereunder cannotbedeemedtohave beensaved. Assuch,the acquisitionproceedingsinfurtherance of preliminary notification are bad in law and without any basis.
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page24of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
Itisalsosubmittedthatthe contentionof respondentspertainingtosurvivalof landacquisitionproceedingsinthe guise of makingcompliance
withorderspassedbythe Hon”ble Supreme CourtandNGTisuntenable asgovernmentcannotbe allowedtotransgressthe expresslegalprovisionsandprocedure,inthe garbof implementingCourt”sdirections. Insupportof saidcontention,reliance isplaceduponDevenderKumarTyagi&Othersv.Stateof Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2011) 9SCC 164.
23.The acquisitionproceedingsare furtherstatedtobe unsustainable inlawfor complete nonapplicationof mindatallstages. Itiscontendedthattheentireproceedingsrelatingtoidentificationoflandforthe purposeof
constructionof STP waswithoutanymeaningfulsurveyor inquiryandthesame wasdonecompletelyatthediscretionof theofficials. The onlysurveythatisstatedtohave beenconductedwasonJune 30, 2015whiletheselection/identificationwasmade onMay13, 2015. ItispointedoutthatSection4mandatesconsultationandparticipationof public andaffectedpersonsevenatthe stage whenthe governmentonlyintendstoacquire land.
Further, the DJB Sewerage Master Plan-2031isstatedtobe notavailable atthe time ofmakingselection.
24.Itisalsosubmittedthatthere wasnoapplicationof mindastowhatsoever astotheneed, urgency, basisandfoundationforinvocationofpowersconferredunder Section10Aof the SecondOrdinance todeprive thelandownersof the mandatoryprovisionsof the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Thereasonsextendedbytherespondentsinthisregardarestatedtobe withoutanyrelevance. It is urgedthateven provisotoSection10A of the Ordinance,
requiresauthoritiestoensure thatthe area of landrequiredisminimum,
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page25of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
whereasthe requisitioningdepartment/R5/DJB wasnotcertainaboutthesame even postissuance of declarationunder Section 19of the Act.
25.Itisfurther contendedthatthe declarationunder Section19of theActwasobtainedkeepingthe Hon”ble Lt. Governor indarkandthere wasnoapplicationof mindonthe objectionsfiledbythe landownersor ontherecommendationof reportof LAC.Also, the objectionsunder Section15of
the Actare statedtohave beenrejectedwithoutdealingthe same effectivelyandobjectivelyandmakingita mere formality. Insupportofcontentions,
reliance isfurther placeduponGojerBrothersPrivate LimitedandAnother
v. State of WestBengalandOthers,(2013) 16SCC660andUshaStudandAgriculturalFarmsPrivate LimitedandOthersv. State of HaryanaandOthers,(2013) 4 SCC 210.
26.Itisfurther submittedbylearnedcounselfor the petitionersthatthe
proceedingsforacquisitionreflectcolourableexercise of powerwhich standsvitiated bymalafides,discrimination, arbitrarinessand favouritism. The landof the private companymeasuring21bigha 01biswaisstatedtohave beenexcludedfromacquisitionfor oblique reasonsandonlythe landof thepetitionerswaswronglyincludedfor acquisition. Nofreshsurveyregardingcomparable suitabilityfor exclusion/inclusionof particular landisstatedtohave beencarriedoutandalsonojustifiablereasonswere givenastowhydeviationwasmade fromthe locationofSTP inSMP-2031, whenthe vacantlandwasalreadyavailable there. The landof the petitionersisstatedtohavebeenpickedupamidstlarge tracksof continuouslandownedbyprivate
limitedcompaniestogive them the benefit.
27.The proposedacquisitionisstatedtobe inviolationof SMP-2031,
MPD-2021, ZDP andDDA”sLandPoolingPolicy.ItisurgedthatVillage
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page26of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
Tajpur Khurdfallsinarea eligible for DDA”slandpoolingpolicyand
petitionershadalreadyoptedandappliedforsurrenderingtheir landinthesaidscheme. Itispointedoutthatunder the saidScheme, 40%of thepooledlandisavailable tothe DDA/governmentfor developmentpurposes. Itis
further submittedthatthe petitioner”slandwhichisnowsoughttobe
acquirediftakenthroughthelandpoolingpolicyfromthe DDAshallbeavailable free of costtothe public exchequer andthattooinpublic interest.
Reliance isfurther placeduponR.K.MittalandOthersv. Stateof UttarPradesh andOthers, (2012) 2 SCC 232.
28.Itissubmittedbylearnedcounselfor thepetitionersthatlandacquisitionproceedingshave tobestayedwheresoever the same have beeninitiatedwithoutfollowingthe provisionsof Chapter II & Chapter III of theAct. Reliance isfurther placeduponValluriJayaramandAnotherv. Stateof AndhraPradesh,2020SCCOnLineAP3396, KarriPrathapRayalaReddy v.State of AndhraPradesh, 2020SCCOnLine AP4034andKanuparthiVenkataSimhadriv. State of Telangana, 2020SCCOnLineTS 2312.
(V)CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THERESPONDENTS
29.The contentionsraisedonbehalf of the respondentsinboththe writpetitionsare common.LearnedCounselappearingfor Respondent1to3andRespondent1to4inW.P(C) 320/2018andW.P (C) 11104/2018alsorelyuponsubmissionsmade onbehalf ofRespondentNo.5DJBinWP(C) No.11104/2018-Yudhvir Singh &. Another v. GNCTD & Others.
Learnedcounselsfor respondentssubmitthatthewritpetitionspreferredbypetitionersare notmaintainable due todelay,laches,waiver,
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page27of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
acquiescence andestoppel. The writpetitionshave beenpreferredwithoutshowinganysufficientcauseafterabouttwotothreeyearsfromthe dateof
publishingof impugnednotificationunder Section11of theRFCTLARR
Act, 2013onAugust28, 2015andonlyafter issue ofdeclarationunderSection19of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013onAugust24, 2017in{WP(C)
320/2018)}andJuly27, 2017in{WP(C) 11104/2018} respectively.The
petitionersare furtherstatedtohaveparticipatedintheprocessof acquisitionproceedingsbyfilingobjections, makingrepresentationsandcomplaintsbefore variousauthorities. Therefore, the petitionersbytheir expressconductacquiesced in the proceedings for proposed acquisition and waived their righttoquestionthe legalityandvalidityof acquisitionproceedings. Itisalsourgedthatthe acquisitionproceedingshadsubstantiallyprogressedfromthedate of issuance of the preliminarynotificationunder Section11of the Actandevendeclarationunder Section19wasissuedonAugust24, 2017and
July27, 2017. Insupportof the contentions, reliance isplaceduponState ofMadhyaPradeshandAnotherv. BhailalBhaiandOthers, 1964SCCOnLine SC10,Aflatoon andOthers. v. Lt. Governorof DelhiandOthers,
(1975) 4SCC285, State ofMaharashtrav. Digambar, (1995) 4SCC683andBandaDevelopmentAuthority v. MotiLalAgarwal&Others, (2011) 5SCC394andChairman, StateBankof IndiaandAnotherv. M.J. James,
(2022) 2 SCC 301.
The petitionersare statedtohave notapproachedthisCourtwithcleanhands, asthe complete materialfactshadnotbeendisclosedor hadbeendistorted. Reliance isfurther placeduponV. ChandrasekaranandAnother
v. Administrative OfficerandOthers, (2012) 12SCC133andRamjasFoundation and Anotherv. Union of Indiaand Others,(2010) 14 SCC 38.
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page28of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
30.The primarycontentionraisedonbehalf of the petitionerschallengingthevalidityof the acquisitionproceedingsonlapse ofthe Ordinance, placingreliance uponKrishnaKumarSingh v. State of BiharandOthers(supra),
hasbeenvehementlydisputed. Also, the malafidesattributedquatheacquisitionproceedingsaredenied. The acquisitionproceedingsare statedtohave beenundertakenbonafideinviewof the directionsissuedbythe NGTinManojKumarMishrav.Union of IndiaandOthers(supra). Itisurgedthatthe publicpurposeandpublic interestisparamountthantheprivate
interestof thepetitionersandtheactionwasinitiatedfor settingupof STP intermsof the directionsof the NGT. The matter isstatedtohave beenproceededwithinaccordance withmandate undertheRFCTLARR
(Amendment) SecondOrdinance, 2015andrelevantprovisionsunder theRFCTLARR Act, 2013. Referenceisalsomade todetailedlistof dateswhichhasalreadybeennoticedtocontendthatdueprocessintermsof theActwasfollowedandthe objectionsfiledonbehalf of the petitionersweredulyconsideredinaccordance withlaw. The acquisitionproceedingsisstatedtohave beencarried outinrespectof the landidentifiedinothervillagesfor settingupof STP withoutchallenge butobjectionshadbeenraisedonly in respect of the land involvedinpresent Writ Petitions.
31.Learnedcounselfor the respondentscontendsthatthe factualpositionin KrishnaKumarSingh andAnotherv. State of BiharandOthers(supra)
isdistinguishable since inthe saidcase, none of the Ordinanceswhichwere
issuedinexerciseofthe power oftheGovernorunder Article 213of theConstitutionwereplacedbefore the State Legislature asmandated. Further,
the State Legislature didnotenacta lawintermsof the Ordinancesandthe
last of them was allowed to lapse.
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page29of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
Itisurgedthatinthe presentcase, after thepromulgationoftheOrdinanceinitiallyonDecember 31, 2014, theRFCTLARR (Amendment)
Bill, 2015wasintroducedonFebruary24, 2015, whichwaspassedinthe
House of People but could not be passed by the Council of States. In view ofabove, RFCTLARR(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015waspromulgatedonApril03,2015.Thereafter, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) SecondBill,
2015wasintroducedin the House of People onMay11, 2015whichreferredtheBilltotheJointCommitteesof the Houses. Inviewof above, togive
continuedeffecttothe RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, theRFCTLARR (Amendment) SecondOrdinance, 2015waspromulgatedonMay 31, 2015.
32.Itisvehementlycontendedthatinpara93inKrishnaKumarSingh v.
State of BiharandOthers(supra), the threefold test was noticedi.e.firsttestof irreversibilityof effect, secondimpracticalityof reversingaconsequence
whichhasensuedunder the Ordinance andthe thirdbeingtestof public
interest. Themajorityviewof the Constitutionbenchisstatedtohave beenrecordedinconclusioninpara 105.12of the saidjudgmentregardingthequestionastowhether rights, privileges,obligationsandliabilitieswouldsurvive inOrdinancewhichhasceasedtooperate, holdingthatthe questionmustbedeterminedasamatter of construction. Inthe lightof theaforesaidtest,the petitionersare statedtobe disentitledfor the relief asclaimedsincetheacquisitionproceedingshavebeenundertakeninpublic interestfor thepurpose of settingof Waste Water TreatmentPlant. Nochallenge is stated tohave beenmade bythe petitionerstothelegalityor validityof the threeOrdinancesinthisregard. Itisurgedthatthe case of the petitionersfails
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page30of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
even on thetest ofconstitutional necessity”asthereis neither anydispute onthepublicpurpose(settingupofWWTP) nor thereisanychallenge tothe
saidpublic purpose.
33.Reliance isalsoplaceduponDatlaVenkataAppalaPrasadraju v.
State of AndhraPradesh, 2022SCCOnline AP2526whereinthe DivisionBenchplacingreliance uponKrishnaKumarSingh v. State of BiharandOthers(supra)dismissedthewritpetitionsandappealschallengingthe
acquisitionproceedingsinitiatedfor establishingGreenFieldAirportexemptingtheprojectsfromthe provisionsof ChapterII andChapter III ofthe Actunder Section10AinsertedbyOrdinance. It issubmittedthateveninthesaidwritpetition, theprojectswereexemptedfromtheprovisionsofChapter II andChapter III of the Actunder Section10AinsertedbyOrdinance 9 of 2014.
34.Placingreliance uponChameliSinghandOthersv. State of U.P. andAnother, (1996) 2SCC549andFirstLandAcquisition CollectorandOthersv. NirodhiPrakash GangoliandAnother, (2002)4SCC160, itiscontendedbylearnedcounselfor the respondentsthatpre-notificationandpostnotificationdelaybygovernmentofficialswouldnotrender the exerciseof power toinvoke urgency clause invalid.
35.ReferringtoDeepakResortsandHotelsPvt.Ltd. v. Union of IndiaandOrs., 149(2008)DLT 582(DB),itisfurther urgedthatchoice of site atwhichSTP shouldbe constructedisamatter lefttothe Executive fordeterminationandthe interferencewiththe selectionisuncalledfor, unlessdecisionissooutrageouslyperverse thatnoreasonable personcouldcountenance thesame. PlacingrelianceuponRamniklalN. Bhutta andAnotherv. State ofMaharashtraandOthers, 1997(1) SCC134, itis
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page31of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
contendedthatpowerunder Article 226ofthe Constitutionof India mustbe
exercisedonlyinfurtherance of interestofjustice andnotmerelyonmakingof a legalpoint.Malice couldnotbe inferredinthe presentcase asthe
acquisitionproceedingswere for a publicpurpose of settingupof WWTPpursuanttothe directions of the NGT.
36.Itisfurther pointedoutbylearnedcounselfor therespondentsthatClause15oftheOrdinance providesfor a savingclausefor allactionstakenunderthePrincipalActtobedeemedtohave beendone or takenunderthePrincipalActasamendedbythe Ordinance. The rightsacquiredpursuanttotheacquisitionare statedtoendureandlastevenafter the expiryof the
Ordinance as the acquisition was for a public purpose.
37.Itisalsopointedoutthatthe notificationsissuedunder Section11and19of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013andproceedingsthereunder are justandvalidandhave beenundertakenbythe CompetentAuthorityafter takingthenecessary approvalsof the Appropriate Government, which was granted afterconsiderationof allthe facts, material and due application of mind.
38.Learnedcounselfor RespondentNo.5 DJB inWP(C) 11104/2018alsopointedoutthatthe compensationamounttothe tune of Rs.6,69,00,500/-
(RupeesSixCrore SixtyNine LakhFive HundredOnly) wasalsodepositedby respondent No. 5with the land acquiring agencyandonly when the awardwastobe passed,the petitionerspreferredthe writpetitionsinJanuaryandOctober,2018aftera periodof more thantwoyearsfromthe date ofissuance of the preliminarynotificationunder Section11datedAugust28,2015. The petitionersalsofiledcomplaintsagainstofficialsof DJB on
unfoundedallegationsbutwhenthe resultsdidnotgoasper theirexpectations,theychallengedthe notificationsanddeclarationsafter a
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page32of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
considerable delay. The writpetitionisstatedtohave beenfiledonlyafter
the closure of vigilance case bythe CVC,while the challenge couldhave
beenmade immediatelyafter issuance ofnotificationunder Section11onAugust 28, 2015.
39.Reliance isalsoplaceduponUrban ImprovementTrust, Udaipurv.
Bheru LalandOthers,(2002) 7SCC712, ReliancePetroleumLimitedv.
ZaverChandPopatlalSumariaandOthers,(1996) 4SCC579andHariSingh andOthersv.State of UPandOthers, (1984) 2SCC624tocontendthatwhere the landisneededfor a publicpurpose,theCourtoughttohave
takencare andnotentertainthe writpetitiononthe groundsof delay,asitislikelytocause seriousprejudice tothe personsfor whose benefitthe landisbeingacquired.Itisfurther urgedthatithasbeenobservedinvariousjudgmentsbyHon”ble ApexCourtthatthe jurisdictionof Courtshouldnotbe exercisedinfavour of the personswhoare guiltyof lachesandinordinate
delay. Reference isalsomade toMahantNarayanaDessjivaru v.State ofAndhraPradesh,AIR1959AP471andArce PolymersPrivate Limitedv.
Alphine Pharmaceuticals Private Limitedand Others, (2022)2SCC 221.
LearnedcounselforrespondentNo.5DJB alsodrawsattentionto
AdministrativeLaw(Page 300to307),OxfordUniversity Press,
9thEditiontoemphasize thattheCourtmayholdthattheactor order isinvalidbutmayrefuse relief tothe petitioneronthe groundsasreferredinthe relevant paragraph reproduced below:
Such an absolute resultdepends, however, upon the willingness of
the courtto grantthenecessarylegal remedies.Thecourtmayhold
thatthe act or order is invalid, but mayrefuse relief to the applicantbecause of his lackof standing.”because hedoes not deservea
discretionaryremedy,”because hehas waived his rights,or forsomeother legal reason.In anysuchcasethe ‘void’order remains effective
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page33of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
and, must beacceptedas ifitwas valid. It seems also thatan ordermaybevoid for onepurpose and valid for another;”and thatitmaybe void against one person but valid against another.” A common casewherean order, howevervoid, becomes valid for practical purposes iswherea statutory timelimit expires after which its validitycannot bequestioned.”Thestatutedoes not say that the void order shall bevalid;but bycutting offlegal remedies itproduces thatresult.”AsLord Diplocksaid of acompulsory purchaseorder allegedto bemadein bad faith but challenged after the expiryof thelimitation period,
the order ‘had legal effect notwithstanding its potential invalidity”
40.Reliance isplaced uponPara 16toPara 19inKrishnaDeviMalchandKamathiaandOthersv.Bombay EnvironmentalAction GroupandOthers,
(2011) 3SCC363tosubmitthatthe petitionershave notchallengedorassailedtheOrdinancetermingittobe voidbutwithinthe teethhaveallegedthe actionsof Governmenttobe a nullity. Itiscontendedthatanorder, evenif notmade ingoodfaithisstillanactcapable of legalconsequencesandbearsnobrandof invalidityuponitsforeheadunlessthenecessaryproceedingsare takenatlawtoestablishthe cause of invalidityandtogetitquashedor otherwise upset, itwillremainaseffective for itsostensible purpose.
41.Itisfurther urgedbylearnedcounselfor RespondentNo.5DJB thatthere isnothinginthe Ordinance relatingtoSection11of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013whichrequiredthe same tobeplaced before the Parliament. Therewasnoquestionof anysuchprovisionunder the Ordinanceeitherinthenatureof repealor afreshenactmentofSection11of the Act, whichwasrequiredtobe tabledfor considerationofthe Parliament.The Ordinance
maskedthe applicabilityof Chapter II andChapter III of the Actfor thepurposesof infrastructure projectsandthattoofor public purpose bysuggestinginclusionof Chapter IIIA. Thisinclusioncouldnotbe brought
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page34of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
intothe statute bookwiththe resultthatthe enactmentwhichwasintroducedonJanuary1, 2014remainedunaffected. The preliminarynotificationthatwasissuedunder Section11of theRFCTLARR Acttherefore remainedunaffectedasthe same wasissuedunder the ActandnotundertheOrdinance. Itissubmittedthatsofarasnon-adherence tochapterII andchapter III were concerned, atthe relevanttime the applicationof the samewasexemptedor maskedasper the Ordinance whichwaslaw”duringthe
relevantperiodandthe provisionsofthesame were tobestrictlyconstruedandapplied. Thus,there wasnoerrorinexercise of power while issuingthepreliminary notificationunder section 11 of the Act.
42.Itisfurther urgedthatsubstantialcompliance wasundertakentofulfilltheobjective of the Act,asprior to issuance of preliminarynotificationinthe
Section11of theact, the purpose foracquisitionandthe bare minimumrequirementof landwasstrictlycompliedwith. The effectof acquisitionontheenvironmentwasconsideredbytheacquiringagencyanditwasensuredthatnobodywasdisplacedandpermissionof Hon”ble LGof Delhiwasdulyobtained.
43.Section15of the Ordinance isstatedtoprovide for a savingclause for
alltheactionstakenunderthePrincipalActtobe deemedtohave beendoneor taken under the Principal Act as amended by the Ordinance.
44.Placingreliance uponDr.AbrahamPataniof Mumbaiandanother
v. State of MaharashtraandOthers, 2022SCC Online SC 1143,itissubmittedthatpublicinterestwillalwaysprevailuponthe private interestandthe private interestmustgive waytothe interestof the generalpublic.
Reference isalsomade to63MoonsTechnologiesLimitedv.Union of
India,(2019) 18SCC401, whereinthe Supreme Courtafterreferringto
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page35of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
variousdecisionswherethe phrasepublic interest”hasbeeninterpreted,
observedthatthe expressionpublic interestwouldmeanthe welfareofthepublicorthe interestof societyasawhole, ascontrastedwiththeselfishinterestof a groupof private individuals.Thus, public interest”mayhave
regardtotheinterestof productionof goodsor servicesessentialtothe
nation,sothattheymaycontribute tothenation”swelfare andprogress, andinsodoing, may also provide muchneeded employment.
45.The pleaof malafideassetoutbythe petitionerisalsocontendedtobe pointlessasthe landinquestionisstatedtohave beenfoundtobe moresuitable,andthe requirementwasreducedfrom50bighasto30bighasafterthe same wasexaminedasper the reportof EngineersIndia LtddatedJuly17,2015. Reliance isplaceduponBharatSingh andOthersv.State of
HaryanaandOthers, (1988) 4SCC534,whereinithasbeenobservedthatthegovernmentwouldacquire onlythatamountof landwhichisnecessaryandsuitable for the publicpurpose inquestion. The landbelongingtothepetitionersisstatedtohave beenacquiredconsideringthe same assuitable
for the public purpose. Itisurgedthatthe petitionerscannotcomplainof anydiscriminationmerelybecause landofother personshadnotbeenacquiredby the Government.
46.Fromthe date of issuanceofthepreliminarynotification, tillthe filing
of the writpetition, itisstatedtobe evidentthatthe AppropriateGovernment”wanted toconstructthe WWTP and took determinative stepstoensure thatwaste andpollutedwater doesnotenter the river Yamuna inline
of the directionsof Hon”ble Supreme CourtandNGT. The entire projectwas
givena finalshape andstepswere takentoconclude the same andnoactionisstatedtoremaininpipeline. Itisfurther submittedthatthe power of
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page36of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
eminentdomainhasenshrinedinarticle inArticle 300Aof the Constitutionhasbeenexercisedbythe Appropriate Governmentinaccordance withthestatute. The objectionof the petitionersthatthe landinquestionfallsinresidentialzone or the use of landwascontrarytolandpoolingpolicyisdisputed.
(VI)REBUTTAL SUBMISSIONS ONBEHALFOFTHE
PETITIONERS47.Inthe rejoinder submissions, learnedcounselfor the petitioners
reiteratesthatthe onlyactiontakenunder the Ordinance isissuance of
notificationunder Section 11 dated August 28,2015 and the same in the lightof judgmentinKrishnaKumarSingh v. State of BiharandOthers(supra)
canbe termedasanactioninpipeline inthe processof acquisitionand not asaconcludedactunder the Ordinance. Itisonlythe irreversibleactionsthatendure evenafter the lapse of Ordinance andinthe presentsetofcircumstances, nosuchactdone isofirreversiblenatureandundoingwhereof would be prejudicing the public purpose.
The contentionof therespondentsthatthe actsare savedbythe savingclause inOrdinance isstatedtobe untenable. Ordinance byitsverynature
cannotprovide for anysavingclause. Secondly, the wordingof the savingclause initself clearlyintendstosave actsdone under the Ordinance onlywhenthe Ordinance isapprovedandthe PrincipalActisamendedbytheOrdinance.
48.Itisvehementlycontendedthatthe plea of sufficientcompliance asraisedonbehalfofrespondentsduringthe courseof argumentswasnotatallraisedinthe pleadings. Further, the SocialImpactAssessmentsurveyunderChapter II andIII ofthe actisentirelydifferentanditisa settledposition
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page37of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
thatwhatisrequiredtobe done mandatorilyunder the statute mustbe doneinthe manner, process and procedure prescribedthereunder.
49.Reliance placedbyrespondentonDatlaVenkataAppalaPrasadraju
v. State of AndhraPradesh(supra)isstatedtobe distinguishable onfacts, asthereina lotof progresshadtakenplace inthe acquisitionproceedings, like
consentawardswerepassed, 1937affectedlandownershadagreedtothe
consentawards, possessionof 2064acresof landwasalreadytaken,
compensationamountof Rs678croreswasalreadypaidtothe landownersandsince landadmeasuringonly37acresremained, the courtobservedthattestof irreversibility, impracticalityandpublic interestaslaiddowninKrishnaKumarSingh v. State of BiharandOthers(supra)stoodsatisfied.
However, itissubmittedthatinthe presentcase respondentshave totallyfailedtoshowif anyother actwasdone under the Ordinance apartfrommere issuance of notification under Section 11 of the Act.
50.Itisfurther urgedthatAcquisitionproceedingscanbe challengedatdifferentstagestillthe time vestingof landtakesplaceswhichisonlybytakingoverphysicalpossessionunder Section16ofLA Act,1894orSection38of2013Actafter passingof Awardanda separatecauseofactionarisesateachstage.Reliance isfurtherplaceduponAnilKumarGuptav. StateofBihar& Ors. (supra). Itispointedoutthatinpresentcase, neither Awardhasbeenmade nor possessionhasbeentakenof the acquired, nor anyvestingof landcanbe presumedandthereisnodelayinpreferringthe writpetitions. The judgmentsreliedbyrespondentsare statedtobedistinguishable onfactsasthereinthe challenge toacquisitionproceedingswas made after vesting of landinquestion.
W.P.(C) 11104/2018 & 320/2018Page38of96
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
51.Itisfurther submittedthatnoplearegardinginterconnectionof allSTP projectsindifferentvillageswastakennor anyplea wasraisedinpleadingsthatquashingof acquisitioninpresentcase wouldaffectallotherprojects. Itisurgedthatpre andpostnotificationdelayonpartof the
Authoritiesandrepeatedextensionsfor makingof declarationunder Section19,andAwardunder Section26of the Actdemolishthe plea ofurgencyraisedbytherespondents. Reliance isfurtherplaceduponDarshanLalNagpal v. Gov