Jage Ram & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Peititon (C) No.1511 of 1987
Petitioner: Jage Ram & Ors.
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Peititon (C) No.1511 of 1987
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 09, 1995
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Practice and Procedure
Land acquisition – Land acquired for defence purpose – Compensation paid – Prayer for grant of alternative site rejected – Pista Devi’s case distinguished.
Cases Reffered:
1.State of U.P. v. Pista Devi, JT 1986 SC 420 = 1986 (4) SCC 251 – Distinguished. (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The only question raised in these two writ petitions is whether an observation is to be made by this Court to the effect that the petitioners would be entitled to allotment of alternative sites by the Delhi Development Authority. It is true that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for a defence purpose, viz., establishment of Radar. They were duly paid the compensation demanded of. One of the reliefs sought in the writ petitions is that since they have been displaced from their holdings, they need some site for construction of their houses and that, therefore, the Government of India may make an effort to provide them alternative sites. We are aware of the decision rendered by this Court in State of U.P. v. Pista Devi (JT 1986 SC 420 = (1986) 4 SCC 251 at 260). But it depends upon the acquisition for which it was made. In that case, acquisition related to planned development of housing scheme by Meerut Development Authority. Therefore, though no scheme was made providing alternative sites to those displaced persons whose lands were acquired and who themselves needed housing accommodations, a direction was given to the Meerut Development Authority to provide alternative site for their housing purpose. Since the acquisition is only for defence purpose and if the request is acceded to, it would create innumerable complications, we are constrained not to accede to forceful persuasive argument addressed by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. The only question raised in these two writ petitions is whether an observation is to be made by this Court to the effect that the petitioners would be entitled to allotment of alternative sites by the Delhi Development Authority. It is true that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for a defence purpose, viz., establishment of Radar. They were duly paid the compensation demanded of. One of the reliefs sought in the writ petitions is that since they have been displaced from their holdings, they need some site for construction of their houses and that, therefore, the Government of India may make an effort to provide them alternative sites. We are aware of the decision rendered by this Court in State of U.P. v. Pista Devi (JT 1986 SC 420 = (1986) 4 SCC 251 at 260). But it depends upon the acquisition for which it was made. In that case, acquisition related to planned development of housing scheme by Meerut Development Authority. Therefore, though no scheme was made providing alternative sites to those displaced persons whose lands were acquired and who themselves needed housing accommodations, a direction was given to the Meerut Development Authority to provide alternative site for their housing purpose. Since the acquisition is only for defence purpose and if the request is acceded to, it would create innumerable complications, we are constrained not to accede to forceful persuasive argument addressed by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
