Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Public Purpose Must Have Paramountcy Over Private Interest – Delhi High Court Upholds Acquisition for WWTPs in Delhi

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices Anoop Kumar Mendiratta and V. Kameswar Rao, dismissed the writ petitions challenging the acquisition of land for setting up Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs) in Delhi, as directed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The Court, in its judgment, emphasized that "Public purpose must have paramountcy over private interest," setting a precedent for future land acquisition disputes.

The petitioners contested the acquisition proceedings, alleging violations of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (RFCTLARR Act), 2013, and raised concerns over urgency, discrimination, and malafides in the process. However, the Bench found that the acquisition for WWTPs, crucial for environmental management, was in the larger public interest and aligned with legal requirements.

In its detailed judgment, the Court noted, "The public purpose must have paramountcy over the private interest as already held above." This observation underscores the judiciary's approach in balancing individual rights with the broader public good, especially in matters of environmental significance.

The Bench upheld the validity of the notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, stating that the publication in the newspaper after the lapse of the relevant Ordinance did not vitiate the proceedings. The decision reaffirms the principle of substantial compliance in administrative law, where adherence to the essence of legal provisions is considered sufficient.

The petitioners' objections, including those related to the violation of the Master Plan and Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) Land Pooling Policy, were also addressed. The Court observed that the acquisition did not contravene the Master Plan or Zonal Plans and that the decision to acquire the petitioners' land was justified.

This ruling has significant implications for land acquisition processes in India, especially those related to environmental projects and public utilities. It highlights the Court's role in ensuring that public interest is prioritized in developmental activities, while also safeguarding the rights of individuals.

The dismissal of the writ petitions and the vacation of the stay orders pave the way for the timely implementation of WWTPs in Delhi, marking a crucial step in the city's environmental management efforts.

Date of Decision: 24.01.2024

Yudhvir Singh & Anr. VS Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.                   

 

Latest Legal News