Holding

The Lt. Governor of Delhi, as the appropriate Government, is competent to issue a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for planned development, and the Delhi Development Act, 1957 does not extinguish the provisions of the 1894 Act.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a notification dated 27 January 1984 issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi for acquiring about 3,550 hectares of land for the planned development of Delhi. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Lt. Governor, as the "appropriate Government" under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could issue such a notification despite the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The Court examined the delegation of Central Government powers to the Lt. Governor under Article 239(1) and the interpretation of "Central Government" in section 15 of the Delhi Development Act, concluding that the Act supplements rather than repeals the Land Acquisition Act. It held that the Lt. Governor is competent to issue the acquisition notification and that the Delhi Development Act does not oust the provisions of the 1894 Act. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Lt. Governor of Delhi is the "appropriate Government" under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring land for planned development.
Whether the Delhi Development Act, 1957 supersedes or eliminates the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Delhi.
Whether the term "Central Government" in section 15 of the Delhi Development Act includes the Lt. Governor/Administrator under Article 239 of the Constitution.
Whether the delegation of powers via notifications under Article 239(1) empowers the Lt. Governor to issue acquisition notifications.

Legislation cited

Delhi Development Act, 1957s. 15, s. 30, s. 41, s. 52
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 3(8)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 3(ee), s. 4(1)

Subjects

Land acquisitionDelhi Development ActLt. Governor competenceAppropriate GovernmentPublic purposeSection 4(1)Section 15Delegation of powersArticle 239Planned development

Judgment

OM PRAKASH, ETC.
v. A
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY
OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI, & ORS.

NOVEMBER 3, 1987 B

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]

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 De/hi-Effect of the C
enactment of the Delhi Development Act 1957 on the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act.

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 D
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 notifi-
cation under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
acquisition of the lands for the "planned development of Delhi."
E
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. Gover-
nor of Delhi is entitled to exercise the powers of the Central Govern- F
ment 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 con-
text 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 G
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 H
761
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] l S.C.R.

A destroy bat only supplements the Land Acquisition Act. [763D-F; 767Gl ,-y.

Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd le Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
[1985] Supp. 3 SCR 382, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
B (Civil) No. 3631 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.1986 of the Delhi
High Court in C.W. No. 1943 of 1986.

AND
c Special Leave Petitign (Civil) No. 4321of1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1987 of the Delhi High
Court in R.A. No. 8 of 1987 in W.P. No. 2013 of 1986.

D 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 ).

E
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 plan-
ned development of Delhi". That is the ground on which, inter a/ia,
F 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.

G Section 4( 1) of the !894 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
H effect shall be publishea in the official Gazette
,,
OM PRAKASH v. U.0.l. {RANGANATHAN, J.] 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-

B

(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."
c
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 D
µowers 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 compe-
~; tent to issue the notification dated 27. 1. 1984.
E
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 develop-
ment of Delhi" can and does envisage the development of Delhi only
in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan and the Zonal F
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:
G
"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 H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!988] I S.C.R.

under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
A
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
B 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."
c It is argued that while the notifications under Article 239 of the A
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 deci-
sion that certain lands are needed for the purposes of the Act. The
D 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:
E
16. Schemes of large scale acquisition, development and dis-
posal of land in Delhi.

17. Delhi Development Authority.

F 18. Master Plan of Delhi, Co-ordination of work in respect of
the Master Plan and slum clearance in the Union Territory of .J
Delhi.

19. Administration of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

G 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 argu-
ments based on s. 15 of the 1957 Act. It is this: that the expression
H "Central Government" ins. 15 of the 1957 Act has to be understood in
OM PRAKASH v. U.0.1. [RANGANATHAN, J.] 765

the light of the definition contained in s. 3(8) of the General Clauses
Act, 1897. That definition reads: A

"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,
B
xx xx xx
(8) 'Central Government' shall-

(a) .............. .

-t. (b) in relation to anything done or to be done after
the commencement of the Constitution, mean
C

the President; and shall include-

(i) in relation to functions entrusted under
clause ( 1) of Article 258 of the Constitu- D
tion to the Government of a State, the
State Govern::ient acting within the scope
of the authority given to it under that
clause;
'- ~!

E
(iii) in relation to the administration of a
Union Territory, the administration
thereof acting within the scope of t)le
authority given to him under Article 239
of the Constitution."
F
It, therefore, follows, it can be said that, even under this provi-
sion, 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 G
hand and the Administrator of the Union Territory on the other. Re-
ference 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 Govern-
ment 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. H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R.

A A counter affidavit had been filed on behal( 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
B 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
C 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
D 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.

E 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 Govern-
ment and the Administrator and demarcates some functions betwec::
the Central Government on the one hand and the State Government
or the Administrator on the other. But, whatever may be the position
F 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( !) 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
G 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. Gover-
nor who, in view of the delegation of powers under Article 239 of the
H Constitution which we have referred to earlier, will have to apply his
OM PRAKASH v. U.0.1. (RANGANATHAN, J.J 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 A
which could not have been within the contemplation of the Legisla-
ture. 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 Govern-
men!' will have to be understood in the same sense for the first part of B
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 DOA, master plan, the 1957
Act, or acquisition etc. of properties in Delhi) comes up for the consi-
deration of the Central Government, it will have to be dealt within the
Ministry of Works & Housing. They are quite consistent with the

J position that even the powers delegated to the Lt. Governor are exer- c
cisable 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 interpreta- D
tion of s. 15(1), the competence of the Lt. Governor to issue the
impugned notification can be upheld on another ground. The provi-
sions 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 E
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 pdwer can also stand size by side with the wider
power of the Lt. Governor to acquire lands for a public purpose. There F
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 G
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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R.

A the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
I 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.

B 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.

-

\
)...