Warning to land-grabbers

By Our Staff Reporter

NEW DELHI, AUG. 21.

In a stern warning to white-collared land grabbers and encroachers, the Delhi High Court today upheld the acquisition of about 50 acres of prime land on which a sham sports club in the name of Shanti Sports Club is being run.

A Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Anil Dev Singh and Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma also vacated the interim order staying the acquisition notification by the Delhi Development Authority which was later upheld by the Collector, Land Acquisition, in December 1980.

The Bench dismissed a bunch of writ petitions, including one by Mr. Satish Khosla, president of the club. The club is located in Masudpur village in Mehrauli in South Delhi.

The DDA had acquired the land for the Vasant Kunj Residential Project which was held up due to prolonged litigation.

Meanwhile, the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court had upheld the acquisition proceedings in favour of the Government.

The Union Ministry of Urban Development had also rejected a request by the club to denotify the acquisition saying that the request could not be acceded as the land was required for public purpose.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the then Minister for Urban Development, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, had taken a decision to denotify the land and regularise it in favour of the club.

The counsel submitted that Mr. Jethmalani had taken a final decision to denotify the land AND that only terms and conditions of the regularisation were to be settled.

They submitted that Mr. Jethmalani's successor, Mr. Jagmohan, had declined to denotify the land by reversing the decision of his successor though no power of review was vested with him

But the Bench dismissed their submission saying that the counsel had proceeded on surmises and assumptions. ``The assumption of the petitioners that Mr. Jethmalani has taken a decision to denotify the land is without any foundation,'' the Bench said.

Similarly, the assumption that the then Minister had decided to regularise the land in favour of the club also did not appear to be correct, the Bench said.

The Minister's note as well as the one recorded by DDA at best reflected the musings of Mr. Jethmalani. The Minister was only pondering over the possibility of a negotiated settlement and possible terms of regularisation on June 7, 1999, the 54-page judgment said.

On the next day on June 8, Mr. Jethmalani had resigned and his place was taken by Mr. Jagmohan; then how could the petitioners claim that the former had taken a final decision on their request, the Bench asked.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Other States
Previous : Rally by Narmada's children
Next     : Orissa to seek Central ban on PWG