PETITIONER:
OM PRAKASH, ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF URBANDEVELO
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1987
BENCH:
RANGNATHAN, S.
BENCH:
RANGNATHAN, S.
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 350 1988 SCR (1) 761
1988 SCC (1) 356 JT 1987 (4) 330
1987 SCALE (2)975
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Whether the Lt. Governor of
Delhi is competent to issue notification under section 4(1)
thereof for the acquisition of lands for planned development
of Delhi-Effect of the enactment of the Delhi Development
Act 1957 on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners challenged before the High Court the
validity of a notification issued by the Lt. Governor of
Delhi for the acquisition of lands in Delhi for "planned
development of Delhi". The High Court decided against the
petitioners. The petitioners moved this court by special
leave. Notice was issued by the Court to the respondents on
a limited point-whether the Lt. Governor is competent to
issue a notification under section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of the lands for
the "planned development of Delhi."
Dismissing the petitions for special leave, the Court,
HELD: Considering the notifications dated 19.8.1954,
1.11.56 and 7-9-66 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs of
the Government of India under Article 239 (1) of the
Constitution of India, the Lt. Governor of Delhi is entitled
to exercise the powers of the Central Government in Delhi
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and he was
competent to issue the notification impugned. The argument
that after the enactment of the Delhi Development Act, 1957,
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are no longer
relevant in the present context and the Lt. Governor has no
jurisdiction or competence to issue the notification in
question, is not right. It is no doubt true that the Delhi
Development Act makes a separate mention of the Central
Government and the Administrator of the Union Territory and
demarcates some functions between the Central Government and
the Administrator, but there can be no doubt that in the
context of section 15 of the Delhi Development Act, it would
not be correct to understand these two expressions in
different senses. The Delhi Development Act does not
762
destroy but only supplements the Land Acquisition Act.
[763D-F; 767G]
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 382, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 363 l of 1987.
From the Judgment and order dated 11.12.1986 of the
Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 1943 of 1986.
AND
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4321 of 1987.
From the Judgment and order dated 5.3.1987 of the Delhi
High Court in R.A. No. 8 of 1987 in W.P. No. 2013 of 1986
B.R.L. Iyenger, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik and Naresh Kaushik
for the Petitioner.
V.B. Saharya for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATHAN, J. In both these matters, notice was given
to the respondent on a limited point: whether the Lt.
Governor of Delhi to competent is issue a notification under
section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (‘the 1894
Act’), to acquire hand “for the planned development of
Delhi”. That is the ground on which, inter alia, the
petitioners unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court
the validity of a notification dated 27.1.1984 issued by the
Lt. Governor of Delhi (as the Head of the Delhi
Administration) for the acquisition of about 3550 hectares
of land situated in Delhi. We have, therefore, heard counsel
on this limited question.
Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, insofar as it is
relevant, reads as follows:
“4(1)Whenever it appears to the appropriate
Government that land in any locality is
needed or is likely to be needed for any
public purpose, a notification to that effect
shall be published in the official Gazette
763
Section 3(ee) of the same Act defines “appropriate
Government” A as follows:
“In this Act, unless there is something repugnant
in the subject or context-
(ee) the expression “appropriate Government”
means, in relation to acquisition of land for
the purposes of the Union, the Central
Government, and, in relation to acquisition
of land for any other purposes, the State
Government.
A reference should also be made, in this context, to
notifications issued under Article 23(1) of the Constitution
of India by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government
of India on 19.8.1954, 1.11.1956 and 7.9.1966. The
cumulative effect of these notifications is that the Lt.
Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi is entitled to
exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the
Central Government under the provisions of the 1894 Act
within the Union Territory of Delhi. There is no doubt,
considering the provisions of the 1894 Act and the above
notifications, that the Lt. Governor of Delhi was fully
competent to issue the notification dated 27.1.1984.
The argument addressed on behalf of the petitioners,
however, is that, after the enactment of the Delhi
Development Act, 1957 (the 1957 Act’), the provisions of the
1894 Act are no longer relevant in the present context. It
is submitted that the expression “planned development of
Delhi” can and does envisage the development of Delhi only
in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan and the
Zonal Plans drawn up under the 1957 Act. Under the said Act,
the full responsibility of drawing up plans for the
development of Delhi as well as executing the same in
several phases is vested in the Central Government. Sec. 15
of the Act, makes it clear that this takes in also the
acquisition of Lands for such planned development. It reads:
“S. 15 Compulsory acquisition of land-
(1) If in the opinion of the Central
Government, any land is required for the
purpose of development, or for any other
purpose, under this Act, the Central
Government may acquire such land
764
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. (1 of 1894).
(2) Where any land has been acquired by the
Central Government, that Government may,
after it has taken possession of the
land, transfer the land to the Authority
or any local authority for the purpose
for which the land has been acquired on
payment by the Authority or the local
authority of the compensation awarded
under that Act and of the charges
incurred by the Government in connection
with the acquisition.”
It is argued that while the notifications under Article
239 of the Constitution may have delegated the power of
acquisition under the second part of s. 15(1) to the Lt.
Governor, they do not affect the Central Government’s
jurisdiction under the first part to take a decision that
certain lands are needed for the purposes of the Act. The
argument that land acquisition in Delhi for planned
development is the ‘business’ of the Central Government is
sought to be reinforced by reference to the Allocation of
Business Rules, 1961, made by the President under Article
77(3) of the Constitution of India. These rules enumerate
the following items as falling within the purview of the
Ministry of Works & Housing in the Union Government:
16. Schemes of large scale acquisition, development
and disposal of land in Delhi.
17. Delhi Development Authority.
18. Master Plan of Delhi, Co-ordination of work in
respect of the Master Plan and slum clearance in the
Union Territory of Delhi.
19. Administration of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
All this shows, according to the learned counsel, that
the Lt. Governor has no jurisdiction or competence to issue
the impugned notification.
There is ex facie, a very plausible reply to the
petitioner’s arguments based on s. 15 of the 1957 Act. It is
this: that the expression “Central Government” in s. 15 of
the 1957 Act has to be understood in
765
the light of the definition contained in s. 3(8) of the
General Clauses Act, 1897. That definition reads:
“3. In this Act, and in all Central Acts and
Regulations made after the commencement
of this Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,
XX XX XX
(8) ‘Central Government’ shall-
(a) ……………
(b) in relation to anything done or to
be done after the commencement of
the Constitution, mean the
President; and shall include-
(i) in relation to functions
entrusted under clause (1) of
Article 258 of the
Constitution to the Government
of a State, the State
Government acting within the
scope of the authority given
to it under that clause;
(iii)in relation to the
administration of a Union
Territory, the administration
thereof acting within the
scope of the authority given
to him under Article 239 of
the Constitution.”It, therefore, follows, it can be said that, even under
this provision, the jurisdiction to acquire lands rests only
in the Lt. Governor of Delhi. Anticipating this reply
counsel for petitioners urges that the definition in the
General Clauses Act is inapplicable in the context of the
Delhi Development Act. It is said that throughout this Act
there runs a clear demarcation between the Central
Government on the one hand and the Administrator of the
Union Territory on the other. Reference is made to s. 30, 41
and 52 of the 1957 Act and it is urged, in the light of
these provisions, that the reference to the Central
Government in s. 15 should be construed as a reference only
to the Central Government and not to the Administrator (i.e.
Lt. Governor) of the Union Territory.766
A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the
Delhi Development Authority (DDA) which contained an
annexure which would have provided a direct answer to the
contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. This answer
is a notification dated 14.2.69, issued by the Central
Government under s. 52(2) of the 1957 Act. By this
notification, the Central Government directs that the powers
of that Government under the provisions of the 1957 Act
mentioned in the Schedule thereto annexed would, subject to
the control of the Central Government and until further
orders, also be exercised by the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Delhi. 11 items are mentioned in the Schedule.
Of these, the powers in regard to item 2 of the Schedule
alone have to be exercised by the Administrator with the
prior approval of the Central Government. The others, which
include powers in regard to s. 15(item 6) can be exercised
by the Administrator even without such prior approval. This
notification places it beyond doubt that the powers of the
Central Government under section 15 can be exercised by the
Lt. Governor of Delhi. Both the power to form an opinion
under the first part of s. 15(1) and the power of
acquisition under the second part are comprehended by this
notification. This notification, therefore, would have
furnished a complete answer to the contentions urged on
behalf of the petitioners. Unfortunately, it appears, the
notification was only at the draft stage and was never
gazetted. We have, therefore, to leave this notification out
of account.But, even otherwise, we are of the opinion that Lt.
Governor was quite competent to issue the notification in
question. It is no doubt true that the 1957 Act makes
separate mention of the Central Government and the
Administrator and demarcates some functions between the
Central Government on the one hand and the State Government
or the Administrator on the other. But, whatever may be the
position in regard to other provisions, there can be no
doubt that, in the con text of section 15, it would not be
correct to understand these two expressions in different
senses. We say this because on reading of s. 15(1) it is the
obvious intention of the Legislature that the same authority
should exercise its functions under both the parts of the
sub-section. If the sub-section is read in the manner in
which the petitioners seek to read it, the working of the
section would become impracticable and cumbersome. According
to them, the Central Government will first to have form an
opinion that certain lands are required for the purposes of
planned development of Delhi under the Act; thereafter this
opinion has to be communicated to the Lt. Governor who, in
view of the delegation of powers under Article 239 of the
Constitution which we have referred to earlier, will have to
apply his
767
mind once again to the same question before he can issue a
notification under section 4 of the 1894 Act. This is a
duplication of functions which could not have been within
the contemplation of the Legislature. The provision requires
the satisfaction of only one authority and since the powers
of the Central Government under the 1894 Act have been
delegated to the Lt. Governor, the expression ‘Central
Government’ will have to be understood in the same sense for
the first part of the sub-section as well. The Allocation of
Business Rules relied on by counsel, have no relevance in
this context. They only provide that, when any of the items
mentioned (such as DDA, master plan, the 1957 Act, or
acquisition etc. Of properties in Delhi) comes up for the
consideration of the Central Government, it will have to be
dealt within the Ministry of Works & Housing. They are quite
consistent with the position that even the powers delegated
to the Lt. Governor are exercisable by him only subject to
the control and further orders of the President. They cannot
be understood as negativing the competence of the Lt.
Governor to deal with the subject-matter in question.Even assuming that the petitioners are right in their
interpretation of s. 15(1), the competence of the Lt.
Governor to issue the impugned notification can be upheld on
another ground. The provisions of the 1894 Act clearly
empower the Lt. Governor to acquire the lands for the
planned development of Delhi, which, it is now settled law,
is clearly a public purpose. That competence cannot be
denied without some express provision in some statute. Both
the 1894 Act and 1957 Act are Central enactments. Granting
that the 1957 Act desired to empower the Central Government
to acquire lands in Delhi for the purposes of the said Act
and even granting that such power has to be exercised
through the Lt. Governor because of the notification under
Article 239(1), such power can also stand size by side with
the wider power of the Lt. Governor to acquire lands for a
public purpose. There is nothing in the 1957 Act which
prohibits the Lt. Governor taking such steps as he desires,
under the powers available to him, to carry out the planned
development of Delhi in consonance with the plans approved
or finalised under the 1957 Act. Viewed in this light, the
powers of the Lt. Governor under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act can be read as additional to the powers of
the Central Government under the Delhi Development Act. The
1957 Act does not destroy but only supplements the 1894 Act.
This is the view taken by the High Court and we agree with
it.Both counsel referred to certain decisions. We do not
think it is necessary to refer to them in detail except to
say that the decision in H
768
the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors., [1985] Supplement 3 SCR 382 relied upon for the
petitioner is clearly distinguishable and it related to a
case regarding the powers of the Delhi Administration in
regard to lands belonging to the Union.For the reasons discussed above, we reject the
contention urged on behalf of the petitioners. The Special
Leave Petitions fail and are dismissed. We, however, make no
order as to costs.S.L. Petitions dismissed. 769