Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2494 (DEL)

GURCHARAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2007-10-01

Sanjiv Khanna

body2007
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ, J. ( 1 ) BY this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the two review applications filed by the appellants herein as against the judgment and order dated 17th May, 2007, whereby we disposed of the two appeals, namely, LPA nos. 438/2003 and 504/2003. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals were filed as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petitions No. 7835/2001 and 4580/2002 respectively. The distinction between the two writ petitions was very minor and only related to the extent of number and description of the two properties. ( 3 ) BY our order dated 17th May, 2007, we upheld the order passed by the learned single Judge that the appellants are in unauthorised occupation of land, which was acquired by the Government. We also held that none of the appellants could establish any right or title in respect of the aforesaid land. In the said order we also dealt with the contentions of the appellants that the land occupied by the appellants falls outside the acquired land. Having taken notice of the said submissions, we held the said submissions to be without any merit as the said un-acquired land included the land situated in Kailash Park Road Colony comprising an area of about 7 Bighas 10 Biswas, but the land of the appellants is located outside the said area and it falls within the periphery of the acquired land. ( 4 ) THE appellants, however, are still aggrieved by the aforesaid order. Consequently, the appellants filed review applications contending, inter alia, that the land occupied by the appellants clearly falls outside the acquired land in Khasra No. 2778/738 in Village Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi, which is also established by the notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act dated 21st September, 1963. It was, therefore, submitted that the aforesaid order should be reviewed by holding that the land of the appellants falls outside the acquired land. ( 5 ) COUNSEL appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted before us that a bare perusal of the notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act dated 21st September, 1963 would make it clear that the respondent had not acquired the land which was occupied by the appellants in khasra No. 2778/738. ( 5 ) COUNSEL appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted before us that a bare perusal of the notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act dated 21st September, 1963 would make it clear that the respondent had not acquired the land which was occupied by the appellants in khasra No. 2778/738. ( 6 ) A copy of the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is placed on record, which we have examined. In the said notification dated 21st september, 1963, which is placed on record by the appellants, a khasra number is shown to be acquired, which is numbered as 2777/738, and which is annexed at Page 16-C by the appellant to the application for injunction (CM No. 8557/2007 ). ( 7 ) IN order to verify the authenticity of the said stand taken and also of the said document dated 21st September, 1963, we called for the original records from the Land Acquisition Officer, who has submitted the original records. A copy of the award is also appearing in the said records. The award clearly indicates that the land situated in Khasra No. 2778/738 was acquired and compensation in respect of the said land was also determined. ( 8 ) WE have also perused the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land acquisition Act existing and appearing in the said original records. The said notification also included the land situated in Khasra No. 2778/738. While typing out the figure 2778, particularly, in figure "8", there appears to be a second impression, but that the figure is "8" and nothing else is apparent on a bare reading of the said notification. Therefore, it is conclusively proved and established that the land occupied by the appellants is within the notification by which land situated in Khasra No. 2778/738 was acquired. The land occupied by the appellants, therefore, stood acquired. There is no error apparent on the face of the records nor the findings arrived at appear to us to be in any manner perverse or erroneous. ( 9 ) THERE is no merit in the review applications. The same are dismissed.