JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.versusLT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

1046                       [2019]
                SUPREME COURT     16 S.C.R. 1046
                               REPORTS                      [2019] 16 S.C.R.


 A      JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
                                         v.
                   LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 3278 of 2012)
 B                             OCTOBER 24, 2019
             [ARUN MISHRA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
              Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 5A, 17(1), (4) – Acquisition
       proceedings initiated by issuance of notification u/s.4 of the 1894
 C     Act – Land proposed to be acquired for Vasant Kunj residential
       scheme– Appellant-Society claimed the ownership of the land –
       Appellant filed writ petition – High Court allowed the writ petition
       in part, maintaining the notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act, but
       quashed the same with respect to invoking the provision of s.17(4)
       of the said Act – On merits, held: No case for interference is made
 D     out – There is no rhyme or reason to direct de-notification of the
       land – Prayer in that regard has already been rejected by the
       appropriate Government – Merely by the fact that one of the
       appellants is Cooperative Society, the complexion of the case does
       not change and this fact was duly taken note of at the time of land
 E     acquisition – Land acquisition could not be said to be illegal in any
       manner – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
       Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.4 and
       24(2).
             Dismissing the appeals, the Court
 F            HELD: 1.1 No case for interference is made out in the
       appeals filed at the instance of the appellants. There is no rhyme
       or reason to direct de-notification of the land and a prayer in that
       regard has already been rejected by the appropriate Government.
       Merely by the fact that one of the appellants is Cooperative
 G     Society, the complexion of the case does not change and this fact
       was duly taken note of at the time of land acquisition under the
       Act. Thus, no advantage can be derived from the policy of the
       State Government, the land acquisition could not be said to be
       illegal in any manner. There is no room for making indulgence to
       quash the land acquisition proceedings. [Para 5] [1048-F-G]
 H
                                       1046
    JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v.                                1047
            LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3278                       A
of 2012
      From the Judgment and Order 03.02.2005 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7332 of 1999
      With
                                                                                B
      Civil Appeal Nos. 3279 and 3280 of 2012.
       Maninder Singh, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advs., Sibo Sankar
Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Ashok Kumar Singh, V. Balaji, T. A. Khan,
Praveen Gaur, Ms. Priyanshi Agarwal, Aadhya Mishra, B. V. Balram
Das, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Vasundra, Advs. for the appearing              C
parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ARUN MISHRA, J.
       1. The appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment             D
and order dated 3.2.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Delhi. The case pertains to land acquisition proceedings initiated by
way of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (the Act). It was proposed to acquire the land for Vasant Kunj
residential scheme. Enquiry under section 5A was dispensed with as              E
section 17(1) was invoked. The society filed a representation for
withdrawal of the notification and thereafter filed a writ petition on
6.12.1999. The society claimed the ownership of the land admeasuring
42 bighas 16 biswas situated in village Mehrauli, New Delhi. The
Government of India has policy to ensure shelter to the citizens and
                                                                                F
cooperative sector is to be given preference for allotting housing sites to
encourage housing. The appellant-society was not under liquidation at
the time of issuance of the notification. On 29.9.2000 the declaration
under section 6 of the Act was issued. The High Court allowed the writ
petition in part, maintaining the notification dated 11.11.1999 under section
4 of the Act and quashed the same with respect to invoking the provision        G
of section 17(4) of the Act.
      2. The appeals were earlier heard by a Division Bench of this
Court and decided vide order dated 26.2.2015. At the time of hearing of
the appeal, it was submitted that in view of the provisions contained in
section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in             H
1048             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 16 S.C.R.


 A     Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013
       Act). The acquisition has lapsed. This Court disposed of the appeals and
       permitted the landholders to initiate appropriate proceedings before the
       proper forum/court claiming the benefit of section 4 of the 2013 Act, and
       in case orders under section 24 of the 2013 Act are adverse to their
       interest, they may apply for reviving the appeal within 90 days of the
 B
       passing of the order.
              3. It is submitted in the Miscellaneous Applications which have
       been filed for revival of the appeals that the writ petition was filed in the
       High Court of Delhi. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court.
       However, the D.D.A. has challenged the judgment and order passed by
 C     the High Court in the civil appeals. Appels have been allowed vide
       judgment and order dated 16.2.2018 hence the applications have been
       filed for revival of the appeals.
             4. We have revived the appeals and heard them on merits. Shri
       Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
 D     appellants, urged that the need of the Cooperative Housing Society is
       for housing and the Government may be directed to release the land to
       the appellants. He has further submitted that the area is no more required
       and as per the policy of the Government, land should be de-notified.
       Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the
 E     prayer for de-notifying the land has already been rejected and there is
       no question of de-notification of the acquired land. Correct facts have
       not been placed before this Court.
              5. We find that no case for interference is made out in the appeals
       filed at the instance of the appellants. There is no rhyme or reason to
 F     direct de-notification of the land and a prayer in that regard has already
       been rejected by the appropriate Government. Merely by the fact that
       one of the appellants is Cooperative Society, the complexion of the case
       does not change and this fact was duly taken note of at the time of land
       acquisition under the Act. Thus, no advantage can be derived from the
       policy of the State Government, the land acquisition could not be said to
 G     be illegal in any manner. There is no room for making indulgence to
       quash the land acquisition proceedings. Resultantly, the appeals being
       devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.


       Divya Pandey                                                Appeals dismissed.
 H