Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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.                   

 

Similar News