# DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY l.RS v. GOVERNMENT OF. NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2012] 2 S.C.R. 595
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-01-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11169 of 2011
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/darshan-lal-nagpal-dead-by-l-rs-v-government-of-nct-of-delhi-and-others-28052
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

A
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- s. 17(1), (4) ands. SA (2) -
Proposal for establishment of electric sub-station - Issuance C
of notification invoking s. 17 (1) and (4) and dispensing with
the rule of hearing in s. S A(2) for the purpose of acquiring
land belonging to appellant for the public purpose -
Challenge to - High Court negatived appellants' challenge
to acquisition of their right - On appeal held: There was long D
time gap of more than five years between initiation of the
proposal for establishment of the sub-station and the issue
of notification u/s. 4 (1) read with s. 17 (1) and (4) -
Government of NCT of Delhi did not produce any material to
justify its· decision to dispense with the application of s. SA -
E
Approval accorded by the Lieutenant Governor did not contain
anything from which it could be inferred that a conscious
decision was taken to dispense with the application of s. SA
which represents two facets of the rule of hearing - No
tangible evidence produced by the Government of NCT F
before the court to show urgency in establishing the substation was such that even few months time, which may have
been consumed in the filing of objections by the land owners
and other interested persons u/s. SA(1) and holding of enquiry
by the Collector u/s. 5A(2) would have frustrated the project G
- Thus, the High Court not justified in rejecting the appellants'
challenge to the invoking of urgency provisions on the
premise that the land was required for implementation of a
project which would benefit large section of the socjety - Order
595
H
•e
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 2 S.CR.
A passed by the High Court set aside and acquisition of land
of the appellant quashed.
s. 17 (1) and (4) - Invocation of urgency provisions under
- Justification of - Held: Invocation of urgency provisions can
B be justified only if even small delay of few weeks or months
may frustrate the public purpose for which the land is sought
to be acquired.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300A - Eminent
c domain - Exercise of power- Held: State in exercise of power
of eminent domain, can acquire the private property for public
purpose - Compulsory acquisition of the property belonging
to a private individual has grave repercussions on his
Constitutional right of not being deprived of his property
0 without the sanction of law-Article 300A and the legal rights -
Degree of care required to be taken by the State is greater
when the power of compulsory acquisition of private land is
exercised by invoking s. 17 because that results in depriving
the owner of his property. without being afforded an opportunity
of hearing.
E
In the year 2004, DTL Company requested the Delhi
Development Authority for allotment of land for
establishment of electric sub-station. The next year,
different
functionaries
of
DTL
made
some
F correspondence inter-se in the said matter. Between the
year 2006 and 2008, the officers of the DTL, the DOA and
the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi exchanged letters on
the issue of allotment of land for the sub-station.
Thereafter, the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi issued a
G notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and
(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition
of 80 bighas 15 biswas land. By another notification, the
Land Acquisition Collector was authorised to take
possession of the land. Pursuant thereto, the appellant
made a representation to MLA that a~. per Master Plan of
H
. I
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
597
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Delhi-2021 only 29.6 bigha land was required for the subA
station and that barren land available in the area could
be utilized for the same but the representation was not
acceded to. The notifications were issued under Section
4(1) read with' Section 17(1) and (4) and Section 6(1) of
the Act. The appellants filed a writ petitions for quashing
B
of notifications on the ground that there was no urgency
for the acquisition of land which could justify invoking
of Se

## Text

_Characters 0–39,819 of 87,208. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39819 for what follows._

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 595
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY l.RS.
v.
GOVERNMENT OF. NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 11169 of 2011)
JANUARY 3, 2012
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
A
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- s. 17(1), (4) ands. SA (2) -
Proposal for establishment of electric sub-station - Issuance C
of notification invoking s. 17 (1) and (4) and dispensing with
the rule of hearing in s. S A(2) for the purpose of acquiring
land belonging to appellant for the public purpose -
Challenge to - High Court negatived appellants' challenge
to acquisition of their right - On appeal held: There was long D
time gap of more than five years between initiation of the
proposal for establishment of the sub-station and the issue
of notification u/s. 4 (1) read with s. 17 (1) and (4) -
Government of NCT of Delhi did not produce any material to
justify its· decision to dispense with the application of s. SA -
E
Approval accorded by the Lieutenant Governor did not contain
anything from which it could be inferred that a conscious
decision was taken to dispense with the application of s. SA
which represents two facets of the rule of hearing - No
tangible evidence produced by the Government of NCT F
before the court to show urgency in establishing the substation was such that even few months time, which may have
been consumed in the filing of objections by the land owners
and other interested persons u/s. SA(1) and holding of enquiry
by the Collector u/s. 5A(2) would have frustrated the project G
- Thus, the High Court not justified in rejecting the appellants'
challenge to the invoking of urgency provisions on the
premise that the land was required for implementation of a
project which would benefit large section of the socjety - Order
595
H
•e
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 2 S.CR.
A passed by the High Court set aside and acquisition of land
of the appellant quashed.
s. 17 (1) and (4) - Invocation of urgency provisions under
- Justification of - Held: Invocation of urgency provisions can
B be justified only if even small delay of few weeks or months
may frustrate the public purpose for which the land is sought
to be acquired.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300A - Eminent
c domain - Exercise of power- Held: State in exercise of power
of eminent domain, can acquire the private property for public
purpose - Compulsory acquisition of the property belonging
to a private individual has grave repercussions on his
Constitutional right of not being deprived of his property
0 without the sanction of law-Article 300A and the legal rights -
Degree of care required to be taken by the State is greater
when the power of compulsory acquisition of private land is
exercised by invoking s. 17 because that results in depriving
the owner of his property. without being afforded an opportunity
of hearing.
E
In the year 2004, DTL Company requested the Delhi
Development Authority for allotment of land for
establishment of electric sub-station. The next year,
different
functionaries
of
DTL
made
some
F correspondence inter-se in the said matter. Between the
year 2006 and 2008, the officers of the DTL, the DOA and
the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi exchanged letters on
the issue of allotment of land for the sub-station.
Thereafter, the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi issued a
G notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and
(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition
of 80 bighas 15 biswas land. By another notification, the
Land Acquisition Collector was authorised to take
possession of the land. Pursuant thereto, the appellant
made a representation to MLA that a~. per Master Plan of
H
. I
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
597
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Delhi-2021 only 29.6 bigha land was required for the subA
station and that barren land available in the area could
be utilized for the same but the representation was not
acceded to. The notifications were issued under Section
4(1) read with' Section 17(1) and (4) and Section 6(1) of
the Act. The appellants filed a writ petitions for quashing
B
of notifications on the ground that there was no urgency
for the acquisition of land which could justify invoking
of Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition negating the appellants
challenge to the invoking of s. 14 of the Act. Therefore, c
the appellants filed the instant appeal.
D'
The questions which arose for consideration in the
instant appeal are whether the Government of NCT of
Delhi could have invoked Section 17(1) and (4) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dispensed with the rule
of hearing embodied in Section 5A(2) thereof for the
purpose of acquiring land measuring 80 bighas 15
biswas including 21 bighas 3 biswas belonging to the
appellants for a public purpose, namely, establishment
of electric sub-station by DTL Company at village 'M'; and
E
whether the Division Bench of the High Court rightly
negatived the appellants' challenge to the acquisition of
their land.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1. Although in exercise of the power of
eminent domain, the State can acquire the private
property for public purpose, it must be remembered that
compulsory acquisition of the property belonging to a
private individual is a serious matter and has grave G
repercussions on his Constitutional right of not being
deprived of his property with
1out the sanction of lawArticle 300A and the legal rights. Therefore, the State
must exercise this power with great care and
H
-
.L
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 2 S.C.R.
A circumspection. At times, compulsory acquisition of land
is likely to make the owner landless. The degree of care
required to be taken by the State is greater when the
power of compulsory acquisition of private land is
exercised by invoking the provisions like the one
B contained in Section 17 of the Act because that results
in depriving the owner of his property with0.ut being
afforded an opportunity of hearing. [Para 14] [62S-G-H;
626-A-C]
1.-2. It is to be seen whether there was any justification
C for invoking the urgency provisions contained in Section
17 (1) and (4) of the Act for the acquisition of the
appellants' land. The Division Bench of the High Court
accepted the explanation given by the respondents by
observing that sub-station in East Delhi is 1')eeded to
D evacuate and utilize the power generated from· ~ SOO MW
gas based plant at place 'B'. While doing so the Bench
completely overlooked that there was long time gap of
more than five years between initiation of the proposal
" for establishment of the sub-station and the issue of
E notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1)
and (4) of the Act. The High Court also failed to notice that
the Government of NCT of Delhi had not produced any
material to justify its decision to dispense with the
application of Section SA of the Act. The' documents
F produced by the parties including the notings recorded
in file and the approval accorded by the Lieutenant
Governor did not contain anything from which could be
inferred that a conscious decision was taken to dispense
with the application of Section SA which represents two
G facets of the rule of hearing that is the right of the land
owner to file objection against the proposed acquisition
of land and of being heard in the inquiry required to be
conducted by the Collector. [Para 1 S] [626-C•G]
Sayeedur Rehman v. State of Bihar (1973) 3 SCC 333:
H 1973 (2) SCR 1043; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
599
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
1 SCC 248: 1978 (2) SCR 621; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief A
··Election Commr. (1978) 1 SCC 405: 1978 (2) SCR 272;
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 664:
1981 (2) SCR 533; A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2
SCC 262: 1970 (1) SCR 457; State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani
Dei {1967) 2 SCR 625; Munshi Singh v. Union of India (1973)
B
2 SCC 337:1973 (1) SCR 973 - referred to.
Ridge v. Baldwin {1964) AC 40 - referred to.
1.3. It is also apposite to mention that no tangible
evidence was produced by the respondents before the C
court to show that the task of establishing the sub-station
at place 'M' was required to be accomplished within a
fixed schedule and the urgency was such that even few
months time, which may have been c9nsumed in the
filing of objections by the land owners and other D
interested persons under Section 5A(1) and holding of
inquiry by the Collector under Section 5A(2), would have
frustrated the project. It seems that the Bench of the' High'
Court was unduly influenced by the fact that
consumption of power in Delhi was increasing everyday
~
and the DTL was making an effort to ensure supply of
power to different areas and for that purpose
establishment ofsub-station at village 'M' was absolutely
imperative. The High Court was not justified in rejecting
the appellants' challenge to the invoking of urgency
F
provisions on the premise that the land was required for
implementation of a project which would benefit large
section of the society. The majority of the projects
undertaken
by
the
State
and
its
agencies/
instrumentalities, the implementation of which requires
G
public money, are meant to benefit the people at large or
substantially large segment of the society. If what the
· High Court has observed is treated as a correct statement
of law, then in all such cases the acquiring authority will
be justified in invoking Section 17 of the Act and
H
J.
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 2 S.C.R.
A dispense with the inquiry contemplated under Section SA,
which would necessarily result in depriving the owner of
his property without any oppottUnity to raise legitimate
objection. However, the invok-ing of the urgency
provisions can be justified only if there exists real
s emergency which cannot brook delay of even few weeks
or months. In other words, the urgency provisions can
be invoked only if even small delay of few weeks or
months may frustrate the public purpose for which the
land is sought to be acquired. Nobody can contest that
c the purpose for which the appellants' land and land
belonging to others was sought to be acquired was a
public purpose but it is one thing to say that the State and
its instrumentality wanted to execute a project of public
importance without loss of time and it is an altogether
0 different thing to say that for execution of such project,
private individuals should be deprived of their property
without even being heard. [Para 21]·[630-G-H; 631-A-G]
I
1.4. The idea of establishing 400/220 KV sub-station
was mooted prior to August, 2004. For next almost three
E years, the officers of the DTL and the ODA exchanged
letters on the issue of allotment of land. On 28.7.2008
Secretary (Power), Government of NCT of Delhi-cumCMD, DTL made a suggestion for the acquisition of land
jby invoking Section 17 of the Act. This became a tool in
F the hands of the concerned authorities and the
Lieutenant Governor mechanically approved the
proposal contained in the file without trying to find out
as to why the urgency provisions were being invoked
after a time gap of five years. If the sub-station was to be
G established on emergency basis, the authorities of the
DTL would not have waited for five y&ars for the invoking
of urgency provisions enshrined in the Act. They would
have immediately approached the Government of NCT of
Delhi and made a request that land be acquired by
H invoking Section 17 of the Act. However, the fact of ttie
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
601
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
matter Is that the concerned officers I functionaries of the
A
DTL, the ODA and the Government of NCT of Delhi
leisurely dealt with the matter for over five years. Even
after some sign of emergency was indicated in letter
dated 9.9.2008 of the Joint Secretary (Power), who made
a mention of the Commonwealth Games scheduled to be
B
organised in October, 2010, it took more than one year
and two mon~hs to the competent authority to issue the
preliminary notification. Therefore, the view taken by the
High Court on the sustainability of the appellants'
challenge to the acquisition of their land cannot be c
approved. [Para 22] (632-D-H; 633-A]
Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1984) 4 SCC
308: 1985 (1) SCR 588; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana
(1971) 1 SCC 671; Kasi reddy Papaiah v. Government of A.P.
AIR 1975 AP 269 - referred to.
D
1.5. The impugned order is set aside. The writ petition
filed by the appellants is allowed and the acquisition of
their land is quashed. However, it is made clear that this
judgment shall not preclude the competent authority from
E
issuing fresh notification under Section 4(1) and taking
other steps necessary for the acquisition of the
appellant's land. If the respondents initiate fresh
proceedings for the acquisition of the appellants' land
then they shall be free to file objections under Section
F
5A(1) and they shall also be entitled to be heard in the
inquiry to be conducted by the Collector in terms of
Section 5A(2) of the Act. [Para 28] [639-A-C]
First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. v. Nirodhi
Prakash Ganguli and Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 160: 2002 (2) SCR
G
326; Union of India & Ors. v. Praveen Gupta and Ors. (1997)
9 SCC 78: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 201; Nand Kishore Gupta
and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors. (2010) 10 sec 282: 2010
(11) SCR 356; Bijwasan Gram Vikas Samiti v. Lt. Governor
and Ors.WP (C) No. 1307/2010, decided on 5.10.2010; Rajiv
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 2 S.C.R.
·A Joshi v. Union of India 2009 (159) DLT 214; Rajinder Kishan
Gupta and Anr. v. Lt. Governor, Government of NCT of Delhi
2010 (114) DLT 708; Sumit Import Services Ltd. and Anr. v.
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors. 2008 (103) DRJ 263;
Mis. ,A.a. Tools Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India WP (C)
B No.4611/1996, decided in 3.2.2010; Deepak Resorts v.
Union of India 2008 (149) DLT 582; Ajay Kumar Sanghi v.
Delhi Police 2009 (163) DLT 74; Union of India and Ors. v.
Pramod Gupta (1997) 9 SCC 78: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 201;
Sheikhar Hotels Gulmohar Enclave v. State of U.P. (2008) 14
c SCC 716: 2008 (8 ) SCR 273; Jai Narain v. Union of India
(1999) 1sec9; Anand Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 11 sec
242: 2010 (9) SCR 133; Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P. (2011)
5 SCC 553; Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1984) 4
SCC 308: 1985 (1) SCR 588; Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.
D (1996) 2 SCC 549: 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 827; State of U.P.
v. Pista Devi (1986) 4 SCC 251: 1986 (3) SCR 7 43;
Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan (1993) 2 SCC 84:
1.993 (1) SCR 269; Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana
(2005) 9 SCC 164; Tika Ram v. State of U.P. (2009) 10 SCC
E 689: 2009 (14) SCR 905; Nand Kishore Gupta v. State of
U.P. (2010) 10 SCC 282: 2010 (11 ) SCR 356; Narayan
Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 SCC 133:
1977 (1) SCR 763; State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980)
2 SCC 471: 1980 (1) SCR 1071; Om Prakash v. State of U. P.
(1998) 6 SCC 1: 1998 (3) SCR 643; Union of India v. Mukesh
F Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14; Union of India v. Krishan Lal Ameja
(2004) 8 SCC 453: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 801; Hindustan
Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC
627: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388; Essco Fabs (P) Ltd. v. State
of Haryana (2009) 2 SCC 377; Babu Ram v. State of
G Haryana (2009) 10 SCC 115: 2009 (14) SCR 1111; Dev
Sharan v. State of U.P. (2011) 4 SCC 769: 2011 (3) SCR 728;
State of West Bengal v. Prafu/la Churan Law (2011) 4 SCC
537; Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC
164; Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra (1977)
H 1 SCC 133: 1977 (1) SCR 763 - referred to.
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
603
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Case Law Reference:
A
2002 (2) SCR 326
Referred to.
Para 8
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 201 Referred to.
Para 8
2010 (11) SCR 356
Referred to.
Para 8
B
2009 (159) DLT 214
Referred to.
Para 8
2010 (114) DLT 708
Referred to.
Para 8
2008 (103) DRJ 263
Referred to.
Para 8
2008 (149) DLT 582
Referred to.
c
Para 8
2009 (163) DLT 74
Referred to.
Para 8
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 201 Referred to.
Para 8
2008 (8) SCR 273
Referred to.
Para 8
D
(1999) 1 sec 9
Referred to.
Para 8
2010 (9) SCR 133
Referred to.
Para 9
(2011 > 5 sec 553
Referred to.
Para 9
E
1985 (1) SCR 588
Referred to.
Para 9
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 827 Referred to.
Para 9
1986 (3) SCR 743
Referred to.
Para 11
F
1993 (1) SCR 269
Referred to.
Para 11
(2005) 9 sec 164
Referred to.
Para 11
2009 (14) SCR 905
Referred to.
Para 11
2010 (11) SCR 356
Referred to.
Para 11
G
1977 (1) SCR 763
Referred to.
Para 11
1980 (1) SCR 1071
Referred to.
Para 11
1998 (3) SCR 643
Referred to.
Para 11
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 2 S.C.R.
A
(2004) 8 sec 14
Referred to.
Para 11
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 801 Referred to.
Para 11
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388 Referred to.
Para 11
B
(2009) 2 sec 311
Referred to.
Para 11
2009 (14) SCR 1111
Referred to.
Para 11
2011 (3) SCR 728
Referred to.
Para 11
(2011) 4 sec 537
Referred to.
Para 11
c
(2011) 9 sec 164
Referred to.
Para 11
1977 (1) SCR 763
Referred to.
Para 13
1973 (2) SCR 1043
Referred to.
Para 16
D
1978 (2) SCR 621
Referred to.
Para 17
1978 (2) SCR 272
Referred to.
Para 18
1981 (2) SCR 533
Referred to.
Para 19
E
(1964) AC 40
Referred to.
Para 19
1970 (1) SCR 457
Referred to.
Para 19
(1967) 2 SCR 625
Referred to.
Para 19
F
1973 (1) SCR 973
Referred to.
Para 20
(1971) 1 SCC_671
Referred to.
Para 24
AIR 1975 A_f_-269
Referred to.
Para 25
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
G 11169 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.01.2011 of the High
Court of O.elhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13376
of 2009.
~·
H
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
605
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Dhruv Mehta, Ashish Was, Tamali Wad for the Appellant.
A
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Najmi Waziri, Neha Kapoor,
Sudarshan Rajan, Rachana Srivastava, Ranchi Daga, Krutin
Joshi, Abhinav Mukerji for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. The questions which arise for
consideration in this appeal are whether the Government of NCT
B
of Delhi could have invoked Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and dispensed with c
fhe rule of hearing embodied in Section 5A(2) thereof for the
purpose of acquiring land measuring 80 bighas 15 biswas
including 21 bighas 3 biswas belonging to the appellants for a
public purpose, namely, establishment of electric sub-station by
Delhi Transco Limited (for short, 'DTL') at village Mandoli and
D
whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had rightly
negatived the appellants' challenge to the acquisition of their
land.
2. For deciding the aforesaid questions, it will be useful to
notice the events which led to the issue of notification dated
E
13.10:2009 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and (4)
of the Act and declaration dated 9.11.2009 under Section 6(1)
of the Act.
2.1 It is not clear from the pleadings of the parties and the
F
record produced before t.he High Court and this Court as to
when the decision was taken to establish 400/220 KV substation at East of Loni Road but this much is evident that by a
communication sent in August, 2004, the DTL requested the
Delhi Development Authority (for short, 'the DDA') for allotment G
of land. For the next about 10 months nothing appears to have
happened. Between June and October, 2005 different
functionaries of DTL made some correspondence inter-se in
the matter of establishment of the sub-station. On 5/6.12.2005,
Manager (400/220 KV SS&L) sent a communication to the
H
606 ·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012) 2 S.C.R.
A
Commissioner (Planning), DDA wherein he emphasized that
establishment of the sub-station was necessary to meet the
power demand of East Delhi and particularly the upcoming
Commonwealth Games. In his reply dated 8.2.2006, Joint
Director (MP), DOA informed the DTL that allotment of sites
B suggested by it is not feasible because site 'A' was developed
as a park and site 'B' was earmarked as a community centre.
2.2 Between January, 2006 and July, 2008, the officers of
the DTL, the DOA and the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi
C exchanged letters on the issue of allotment of land for the substation. While the officers of DTL stressed the need for early
allotment of land, the officers of the DDA repeatedly expressed
their inability to allot the particular site by pointing out that the
same was reserved for other purpose. On 28.07.2008,
Secretary (Power), Government of NCT of Delhi-cum-CMD,
D DTL requested the DOA to change the land use of the particular
site and inform the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi so that action
could be taken for the acquisition of land under Section 17 of
the Act. In that letter, it was also mentioned that due to paucity
of ,land, the DTL has proposed to establish a GIS indoor type
E
sub-station which could be accommodated in a space of about
200 x 125 m·eters as against the original requirement of 700 x
500 meters. The relevant portions of that letter are extracted
below:
F
G
H
"In pursuance of above, a meeting was held with ViceChairman, DOA on 06.05.2008 wherein a request was
made for the allotment of land in East Delhi. Officers of
Delhi Transco Limited, State Transmission Utility, along
with Officers of ODA and the concerned ADM of the area '
had identified the land in their joint inspection held on 30th
June, 2008. Copy of Khasra Nos. and their Report is
enclosed as Annexure-1. However, in the meantime ODA
informed that the land in question is not acquired by DOA.
It was further informed that as per Master Plan, Agriculture/
Green area can be utilized for Utilities. Copy of the letter
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
607
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
No. F.6(4)2004/MP/D-127 dated 19.5.2008 is enclosed as A.
Annexure-11. Since the establishment of the Grid Station
is of paramount importance for strengthening the power
supply in East Delhi, DOA is requested to change the
land use and to inform GNCTD so that action be taken
for acquisition of the same under Section 17, i.e., for the B
public utility.
Earlier it was proposed to construct an outdoor 400/200
KV Grid Station but keeping in view the paucity and
availability of land DTL has now proposed to establish a C
GIS indoor type sub-station which could be
accommodated in a space of about 200 x 125 meters. It
shall be appreciated if appropriate directions are issued
to the concerned officers for doing the needful
expeditiously. n
D
(underlining is ours)
2.3 After about one month, Joint Secretary (Power) sent
communication dated 9.9.2008 to the Principal Secretary, Land
and Building Department with the request that action may be E
initiated for the acquisition of the identified piece of land by
invoking Section 17 of the Act. The relevant portions of that letter
are extracted below:
"Hon'ble Prime Minister of India has laid the foundation for
1500 KV gas based power plant at Bawana on
F
24.03.2008 being constructed by Pragati Power
Corporation Limited, a company owned by Govt, of NCT
of Delhi in order to evacuate and utilize the generation from
this plant for the benefit of Delhi, a study was conducted
by Central Electricity Authority which has recommended G
the establishment of a 220 KV substation in East Delhi for
evacuation of power.
Officers of Delhi Transco Limited along with officers of
DOA a-nd concerned ADM have identified the land H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 2 S.C.R.
measuring 200 M x 150 M in East Delhi for the proposed
grid. Copy of Khasra Nos. and their report is enclosed at
Annexure-1. Sketch showing broad location of the plot
,proposed to be acquired with Khasra Nos. of the proposed
!location is at Annexure-11. DDA has informed that the land
in question is not acquired by DDA. However, as per
Master Plan 2021, public utilities are permitted in all use
zones. In this regard, a copy of Director (Planning) ODA
letter dated 19.05.2008 is enclosed as Annexure-111. The
proposed site has already been taken up with VC, ODA
for change of land use (Annexure-IV).
The commissioning of 155 MW power plant at Bawana
is scheduled before the Commonwealth Games in
· October-2010. Therefore, keeping in view the urgency
involved, kindly initiate the process for acquisition of
identified peace of land in East Delhi in favour of
Deparlment of Power, GNCTD as provided under section
17 of the Lanc;J Acquisition Act at the very earliest,:
(underlining is ours)
Soon thereafter, the Land and Building Department sent letter
dated 30.9.2008 !o Additional District Magistrate-cum-Land
Acquisition Collector (North-East) to send the following
information/documents:
"1.
Draft notification u/s 4, 6 and 17 along with the copy
of Aks Sizra, field book etc.
2.
Report after conducting Joint Survey.
3.
80% estimated compensation amount with
Calculation Sheet"
2.4 After about six months, Deputy General Manager
(Planning-I), DTL sent letter dated 6.3.2009 to Deputy
Secretary (Land Acquisition) and informed him that land
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
609
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
measuring 250 x 200 sq. mts. with approach road will be
A
required to accommodate the proposed three voltage level
equipment as against the requirement of 200 x 125 sq. mts.
indicated in the earlier communications. The concerned officer
also requested that the acquisition of 80 bighas 15 biswas land
may be finalized as per the joirit site inspection carried out on
B
12.01.2009.
2.5 On its part, the DOA sent letter dated 8.5.2009 to the
Deputy Secretary (Land Acquisition) that a joint site inspection
be carried out for finalization of the site. However, the latter sent C
communication dated 16.6.2009 to the ODA to issue NOC
required for initiation of the acquisition proceedings.
2.6 In September, 2009, the Land and Building
Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi prepared
proposal for the acquisition of land measuring 200 x 125 sq.
D
mts. by invoking Sections 4 and 6 read with Srction 17(1) and
(4) of the Act. This is evident from the notings recorded in
paragraphs 56 to 61 and 63 to 65 of file bearing No. F.S(11 )/
08/L&B/LA, which are extracted below:
E
"56. A requisition was received from Joint Secretary
(Power) Department of Power for acquisition of land
measuring 200 x 125 Sq .. m. identified in East Delhi for
construction of 400 x 200 KV grid station (Village Mandoli)
vide their letter No. F.11 (88)/2008/Power/2186 dated
F
09.09.2009 (P-6/C). Accordingly, the ADM/LAC (NE) was
requested for draft notifications and other revenue records
vide letter dated 30.09.2008 (P-7/C).
57. The ADM/LC (NE) vide his letterctated 31.01.2009 (P28/C) forwarded draft notification u/s 4 & 6 (P-26 & 27/C) G
for acquisition of land measuring 80 Bigha 15 Biswa. Copy
of Joint Survey Report (P-23/C), copy of Field Book (P20/C), copy of Asks Sizra (P-19/C) and Calculation Sheet
for estimated compensation amount (P-25/C).
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 2 S.C.R.
58. The revenue staff scrutinized the draft notificatio'1.and
some discrepancies have been found. The repo.rt of
revenue branch may be seen at page (P-5 & 6/N).
59. Accordingly, LAC (NE) was requested for clarification
vide letter dated 2/3/09 (page-29/C). A clarification was
given by LAC (NE) in aforesaid context and may be seen
at P•32 to 39/C. Report of revenue branch may be seen
at page 11 & 12/N. Letter dated 30/7 /08 and 6/3/09
received from Delhi Transco Ltd. regarding change of
proposal may be seen at P.30 and 31/C. Delhi Transco
Ltd. has given the justification for the change of proposal
regarding requirement of land, i.e., 80 Bigha 15 Biswa
instead of 200 x 125 Sq.m.
60. Vide letter No.F.6(4)2004-MP/265 dated 719109 Jt.
Director (MP) DD has informed that DOA has no objection
with respect to proposed location of land for establishing
4001200 KV ESS subject to compliance of the following
conditions:-
a.
Submission of a layout plan/location plan with
description of the land under reference be
submitted to ascertain the boundaries of the site.
b.
Justification for an area of 6.8 hact. against 2.96
hact. required for establishment of 2001400 KV
ESS as per MPD-2021 norms.
c.
This is a Master Plan level utility for which change
of land use will be processed after land is acquired.
d.
Submission of transmission route alignm~nt plan
as the surrounding area is thickly populated.
e. . The site shall not be used for any other purpose
other than ESS.
61. As the matter is urgent and related to Commonwealth
'
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
611
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DEU-:1 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Games, if approved Hon'ble LG. may be requested to
A
kindly approve acquisition of land measuring 80 Bigha 15
Biswa as per the draft notifications placed opposite for
acquisition of land for establishment of 400 x 200 KV substation in village-Mandoli and issuance of notification u/s
4 read with 17(4) and section 6 along with 17(1) of Land
B
Acquisition Act, 1894.
63. May kindly see the proposal at page 21/N regarding
acquisition of land measuring 80 Bigha 15 Biswa for
construction of 400 x 200 KV grid station in village
C
Mandoli. The proposal has been received from Power
Department, Govt., of NCT of Delhi, which is available at
page 6/C. It h~s been mentioned in the proposal that
Hon'ble Prime
inister of India has laid the foundation
stone for 155 M
gas based power plant at Bawana on
24-3-2008 which is being constructed by Pragati Power
D
Corporation Limited, a company owned by Govt., of NCT
of Delhi. It has been also mention~d in the proposal that
to evacuate and utilize the generation from this plant for
the benefit of Delhi, a study was conducted by Central
Electricity Authority which has recommended the
E
establishment of a 220 KV sub-station in East Delhi for
evacuation of power. The Power Department has
requested that the acquisition of the above said land may
be proceeded with under the emergency provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act because 1500 MW power at Bawana
F
is scheduled to be commissioned before the
Commonwealth Games, 2010.
64. The Land Acquisition Collector (NIE) has prepared a
draft notification under section 4 & 6 (page 26 & 27/C)
G
after conduction the Joint survey report along with
concerned department and copy of the same is available
at page 23/C along with relevant records. As per the joint
survey available at page 22/C and 23/C it appears that
entire land is laying vacant except to Bhattas (Brick Kiln)
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 2 S.C.R.
and boundary walls in 3 Khasras. The DOA has also
provided no objection for acquisition subject to certain
conditions as mentioned in letter dated 07-09-09, which is
available at page 64/C.
65. From the proposal of the Power Department it is clear
that I.and is required for valid public purpose and urgent
need for acquisition of the land has also been justified by
the Power Department. Therefore, if approved, Hon'ble Lt.
Governor may kindly be requested to approve acquisition
. of land measuring 80 Bigha 15 Biswa as per the draft
notification placed opposite for the public purpose namely
· for establishing 400 x 200 KV grid sub-station for Power
Department in Village-Mandoli and issuance of notification
u/s 4 read with 17(4) and ~ection 6 along with 17(1) of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894."
2. 7 The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi accorded his
approval on 26.9.2009 in the following terms:
"I have gone through the records and requirement of Delhi
Transco Ltd. for acquisition of land for Establishment of
400x200 kv station at village Mandoli and the draft
notifications prepared by LAC (North-East).
I am fully satisfied that the land measuring 80 Bigha 15
Biswa is urgently required for above purpose. In view of
the urgency of the scheme, I order that the provisions of
section SA shall not apply and notifications under section
4 read with 17(4), 6 & 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 be issued immediately.
Sd/-
Tejendra Khanna
Lt. Governor Delhi
26.09.2009."
3. In compliance of the direction given by the Lieutenant
H Governor, the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi issued notification
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
613
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
dated 13.10.2009 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1)
A
and (4) for the acquisition of 80 bighas 15 biswas land. The
declaration issued under Section 6(1) was published vide
notification dated 9.11.2009. By another notification of the same
date, Land Acquisition Collector (North-East), Delhi was
authorised to take possession of the land on the expiry of 15
B
days.
4. When the appellants learnt about the proposed
acquisition of their land, they made a representation to the
Member of the Legislative Assembly that as per Master Plan
of Delhi-2021 only 29.6 bigha land was required for the subC
station and that barren land available in the area could be
utilized for that purpose leaving out their land. The concerned
Member of the Legislative Assembly forwarded the
representation to the Government of NCT of Delhi on 28.4.2009
but the same did not yield the desired result and the notifications D
were issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and
(4) and Section 6(1) of the Act. Thereupon, the appellants filed
Writ Petition No: 13376 of 2009 for quashing of notifications
dated 13.10.2009 and 9.11.2009. The main plank of their
challenge was that there was no urgency for the acquisition of E
land which could justify invoking of Section 17(1) and (4) of the
Act. They pleaded that more than 4 years time spent in the
correspondence exchanged between the DTL, the State
Government and the DOA clearly shows that there was no
urgency in the establishment of the sub-station and the cause
F
put forward by the DTL in 2008-2009, namely, the requirement
of power for Commonwealth Games did not warrant invoking
of Section 17(1) and (4) which resulted in depriving them of
their property without being heard. The appellants further
pleaded that the Lieutenant Governor had not applied mind on
G
the issue of urgency and approved the proposal prepared by
the Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi
without satisfying himself that there was emergent need for the
acquisition of land for the purpose for which the proposal had
been initiated prior to August, 2004. The appellants also
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 2 S.C.R.
A
claimed that other parcels of land including waste land
belonging to the public authorities and the Gaon Sabha were.-
available, which could be utilized for establishing the substation but, without examining the feasibility of acquiring an
alternative piece of land, the respondents arbitrarily deprived
B them of their property.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government
of NCT of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi it was
averred that with a view to provide power to the city of Delhi,
1500 MW gas based power plant was being constructed at
C Bawana by a Government owned company, viz., Pragati Power
Corporation Limited; that the plant is scheduled to be
commissioned in a time-bound manner in October, 2010
before the commencement of the Commonwealth Games; that
in order to evacuate and utilize the power generated from the
D new plant for the benefit of Delhi, the Central Electricity Authority
recommended establishment of 220 KV sub-station in East
Delhi; that after identifying the land in question the Power
Department of Gov~rnment of NCT of Delhi made a request
for initiation of the acquisition proceedings on urgent basis; that
E on receipt of letter dated 9.9.2008, instructions were issued
to the Land Acquisition Collector to conduct a joint survey,
prepare a draft notification and also make calculation of 80 per
cent of the estimated compensation and that after taking all the
necessary steps, a note was put up before the Lieutenant
F
Governor, who approved the proposal for the acquisition of land
under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and (4) and also to
dispense with the inquiry envisaged under Section SA of the
Act. It was also pleaded that the beneficiary of the acquisition
deposited a sum of Rs.9,27, 11,840/- towards 80 per cent of
G the estimated compensation as required by Section 17(3A) of
the Act, which was remitted to the Land Acquisition Collector
for payment. In Para 11 of the counter affidavit it was averred
that there is an urgent need of the land for the purpose of
construction of sub-station by the DTL in the larger public
H interest. ·
DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v.
615
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [G.S. SINGHVI, J,]
6. In a separate written statement filed on behalf of the DTL A
. it was pleaded that decision was taken by the Government to
establish 400 I 220 KV grid sub-station to meet the growing
demand of power in Delhi and the establishment of the substation was approved by Delhi Electricity Regulatory
Commission vide order dated 16.6.2009. In paragraphs 5 to
B
7 of the counter affidavit of the DTL reference was made to the
decision taken by the Government to construct 1500 MW
Pragati Ill Power Plant at Bawana IPGCL; 2 x 490 MW Thermal
Power Stations at Dadri and 1500 MW Thermal Station at
Jhajjar and also to establish grid sub-stations for evacuation c
of power from different plants. According to the DTL, as per
the Master Plan of Delhi-2021, the minimum land required for
establishment of a conventional outdoor 400/220/66 KV substation is 60 acres but because of scarcity of land, it was
decided to establish an indoor GIS sub-station and for that o
purpose 80 bighas land was required. It was also the pleaded
case of the DTL that the appellants' land was identified after
inspections carried out by the officers of the DOA, Land and
Building Department, Land Acquisition Collector, Government
of NCT of Delhi and its own officers. In paragraphs 13, 14 and
E
15 of the counter affidavit of the DTL, the following averments
were made:
"13. That proposed 400KV sub-station cannot be
established in the 30 bighas of Gram Sabha land. The said
Gram Sabha land does not fulfill the complete purpose of F
the answering respondent because 80 bighas are required
for the establishment of the proposed sub-station. Further,
the said Gram Sabha's land does not give any entrance I
exit point towards State Highway. Therefore, the acquisition
of the said Gram Sabha's land does not serve any G
purpose.
14. That Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, which
is a statutory body of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide its letter
No. F.17(51)/Engg./DERC/2009-10/1074 dated 16.6.2009 H
616
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 2 S.C.R.
granted investment approval of scheme for supply testing
and commissioning of 400/220/66KV GIS sub-station at
East of Loni Road to the tune of Rs. 250.24 crores. The
true copy of the letter dated 16.6.2009 is marked and
annexed as Annexure - E.
15. Further the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. vide
its letter dated 28.8.2009 addressed to the answering
respondent emphasized on the urgency regarding the
setting up and commission of the 400 KV sub-station East
of Loni Road since the transmission line is being
constructed for catering the additional load of
Commonwealth Games, 2010 from 2 x 490 MW, NTPC
Dadri Power Plant (under construction) and set the timeline
of completion by June, 2010. It was further pointed out that
location of Lone Road sub-station and coordinates of 400
KV switch yard gantry were urgently required for the
completion of the survey work. the true copy of the letter
dated 28.8.2009 is marked and annexed as Annexure -
F. Therefore, it was a comprehensive scheme consisting
of establishment of 400/220KV grid sub-station by the
answering respondent whereas in feed i.e. 400 KV
transmission line from Dadri Generatin'g Station upto the
proposed grid sub-station at East of Loni Road."
7.