FACTS OF THE CASE - The Issues of the Case were regarding the Judgment passed by 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 section 17(1) was invoked. The society filed a representation for withdrawal of the notification, The society claimed the ownership of the land measuring 42 bighas 16 biswas situated in village Mehrauli, New Delhi. The Government of India has policy to ensure shelter to the citizens and 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. 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 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, The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court. However, the D.D.A. has challenged the judgment and order passed by the High Court in the civil appeals.
CONCLUSION- The Court observed in the case there was no interference filled from the instance from the appellants. There is no rhyme or reason to direct the notification of the land and a prayer in that regard has already been rejected by the appropriate Government. Merely by the fact 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 be illegal in any manner. Hence the Case was dismissed by the Honorable Supreme Court on the ground of is no room for making indulgence to quash the land acquisition proceedings.