Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2345 (DEL)

BAIJNATH AGGARWAL DHARMARTH v. LT. GOVERNOR

2007-09-18

T S Thakur, Veena Birbal

body2007
T. S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED of a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner filed writ petition (C)No. 6384/2000 in this Court. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner appears to have moved an application before the lt. Governor seeking denotification of the land sought to be acquired. When the filing of the said application was brought to the notice of the Court, it passed an order on 4. 7. 2006 to the following effect: "the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has moved an application before the Lt. Governor for de-notification of the land sought to be acquired. The said representation is stated to be still pending before the lt. Governor. The learned counsel for the respondent states that a decision on petitioners' representation shall be taken expeditiously, not later than 7. 8. 2006. This decision shall also be communicated to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of the decision. The said decision by way of an affidavit be placed on record before the next date of hearing. " ( 2 ) PURSUANT to the above direction the prayer for denotification of the land appears to have been examined by the respondents on the basis of an inspection conducted by the competent authority and declined in terms of an order dated 21. 10. 2006. The relevant portion of the order refusing to denotify the land reads as under: "the land in question had been inspected by the staff of the department and it was found that the two Banquet Halls were running their business on the open space which was meant for school playground. Since the society has blatantly violated the undertaking given earlier and also that the land is still required for the purpose of which it was notified, the representation of the society for de-notification of land was considered and it rejected by the competent authority. " ( 3 ) WRIT petition (C) No. 6384/2000 was eventually heard by a Division Bench of this Court on 22. 8. 2006 and dismissed holding that since the request for denotification had been declined, the petition no longer survived for consideration. Liberty was, however, given to the petitioner to seek redress in appropriate proceedings against the order refusing to denotify the land in question. 8. 2006 and dismissed holding that since the request for denotification had been declined, the petition no longer survived for consideration. Liberty was, however, given to the petitioner to seek redress in appropriate proceedings against the order refusing to denotify the land in question. That is precisely the backdrop in which the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the respondents whereby the prayer for denotification of the land in question was rejected. ( 4 ) HAVING heard Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, we are of the view that the challenge to the order declining to denotify the land is without any merit. Section 48 of the Land acquisition Act is, in our opinion, a provision that simply enables the government to withdraw from acquisition of any property at any time before taking possession of the same. It does not create any enforceable legal right in the owner of the property to demand denotification of the land. That apart, the request for denotification made by the petitioner appears to have been considered and declined for reasons which are neither irrelevant nor irrational or perverse to warrant any interference from this Court. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that since the petitioner has been mislead into seeking relief against the order refusing to denotify the land, he would suffer irreparable injury in case the petitioner was not given the liberty to seek redress against the acquisition proceedings by applying to the Court for review of order dated 22. 8. 2006 passed in w. P. (C)6384/2000. He urged that the rejection of the prayer for denotification of land could not render the challenge to the validity of the proceedings infructuous. The two issues were, according to Mr. Gupta, entirely distinct from each other and even when the government had declined to denotify the land, the petitioner could successfully demonstrate that the acquisition proceedings were bad on the grounds set out by it in the writ petition. ( 6 ) WE do not consider it necessary to make any observation regarding the correctness or otherwise of the submission made by Mr. Gupta. We say so because we are not sitting in appeal over the order passed by the Division Bench in w. P. (C) No. 6384/2000. ( 6 ) WE do not consider it necessary to make any observation regarding the correctness or otherwise of the submission made by Mr. Gupta. We say so because we are not sitting in appeal over the order passed by the Division Bench in w. P. (C) No. 6384/2000. We, however, see no reason why the petitioner should, by reason of the order of dismissal being passed by us in the present writ petition, be dis-entitled to seek redress by way of review before the Bench that passed the said order or by way of an appeal before the Apex Court, if such a remedy is otherwise legally open to it. In the circumstances, we dismiss this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek such remedy as may be otherwise open to it in law against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 6384/2000 by way of appeal and/or by way of review subject to all just exceptions including limitation. ( 7 ) MR. GUPTA, at this stage prayed for continuance of the interim protection granted to the petitioner for a period of four weeks to enable it to seek appropriate redress. We see no reason to decline that limited prayer. We, therefore, direct that the interim protection granted by this Court in terms of the order passed on 29. 8. 2006 shall continue for a period of four weeks from today. No costs.