1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgments and orders dated 24th July, 2001, passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 4361 of 1998 etc., Union of India and others have filed these appeals. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Court quashed the notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of acquiring authority in issuing the said notification.
2. Learned Addl. Solicitor General Mr. Mukul Rohtagi submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the notification issued under Section 4 cannot be justified because the High Court has not assigned any reason for setting aside the same. He also pointed out that one of the growth center was to be established in village Rajokari. However, due to paucity of Government/Geon Sabha land, it was decided not to have any growth center in Rajokari and it was decided to set up a growth point at Samalkhja. The Government issued a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the land of village Samalkha. The Government dispensed with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act on the ground that the acquisition of land is for the purposes of development of growth point in the area, which is a matter of urgent need. He, therefore, tried to justify the notification issued under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act and contended that there was urgency of implementing the project.
3. As against this, learned senior counsel Mr. P.N. Lekhi, Mr. V.A. Mohta and Mr. Ravinder Sethi elaborately pointed out that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the authority in issuing the notification under Section 4 and Section 17(1) of the Act and in any case there is no question of applying urgency clause. It has been pointed out that so-called Mini Master Plan is not backed by any authority of law and the Master Plan for Delhi prepared under the Delhi Development Act does not provide for establishment of Growth center on the land which is sought to be acquired. It is also pointed out that the impugned notification is issued mala fidely.
4. For the allegation of mala fides against the then Chief Minister and the M.L.A., the High Court did not issue notices to them before hearing the petitions. At that stage, respondents did not submit to the Court that notices be issued to them so that question of personal mala fides could be decided. In our view, in these appeals that question cannot be reopened.
5. Further, the High Court held that this case cannot be said to be a matter of grave urgency and there is total absence of material for a decision to dispense with Section 5A. If the Government cannot ensure that inquiry be expeditiously held by the Collector under Section 5A, it has to blame itself and it cannot thrust the adverse consequences in this behalf on the land owners by depriving them of their rights guaranteed under Section 5A. Further, setting up of Growth Point is a part of process of development of rural areas by creating necessary infrastructure. Such works keep going on as the society grows and these are long term measures. In fact, that is why the spar has been kept as 12 years in the instant case.
6. The reasons recorded by the High Court for quashing the notification issued under Section 17(1) & (4) cannot be faulted with. This does not require further discussion in view of the correspondence produced on record. This aspect has been properly dealt with by the High Court and it has become final.
7. However, the impugned orders passed by the High Court quashing the notification under Section 4 without assigning any reason cannot be justified and hence that part of the order requires to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are number of justifiable grounds for quashing the notification under Section 4 and, therefore, the High Court has passed such orders. In support, the learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to various aspects. However, the High Court had not dealt with this question and has kept all other questions open by observing that respondents have raised several other points to challenge the impugned notifications, but those contentions were not dealt with in view of setting aside of notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) & (4) of the Act.
9. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court quashing the notification issued under Section 17(1) & (4) of the Act are confirmed. For deciding the validity of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, matters are remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. It would be open to the parties to raise all contentions which are permissible on the basis of the record except the contention with regard to personal mala fides. Plan sanctioned by the DDA for construction of Mall be taken on record. Considering the urgency as contemplated by the Authority, the High Court is requested to dispose of the matters as early as possible preferably within 12 weeks from today. Learned counsel for the parties assure that they would not ask for any necessary adjournment even on the ground that counsel is busy in any other Court.
10. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.