JUDGMENT
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos.11233-11234 of 2001.
2. All these appeals involving identical issues were heard together and
are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order.
3. The prime issue that falls for our consideration in these appeals is
whether in view of the provisions of Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act,
2
1972 (for short "Delhi Lands Act"), read with the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Land Acquisition Act") transfer of land made by
the original owner by registering a sale deed on the basis of which mutation was
also granted would and could be accepted as legal and valid transfer despite the
fact that such land was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties advanced elaborate and in-
depth arguments on the aforesaid issue. But before we deal with and discuss the
same, it would be necessary for us to mention a few facts leading to filing of the
present appeals.
5. On 24.10.1961, a Notification was issued under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act under the orders of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
intending acquisition of land for the public purpose, namely for the planned
development of Delhi. Under the aforesaid Notification the land allegedly
belonging to the predecessors in-interest of the present appellants which
constitute the subject matter of the present appeals was also sought to be acquired.
Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act through a Notification
dated 4.1.1969 was also issued stating that the said land is required for the public
purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi. In the year 1980, two of
3
the appellants viz. Mrs. Meera Sahni and Mrs. Padma Mahant purchased the said
acquired land from one Shri Chand which was transferred through Mr. Nand
Kishore, power of attorney holder. Subsequently, on 26.4.1983 Notification under
section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. It is pertinent to mention here
that no Notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, which
empowers the government to withdraw from acquisition of any land on which
possession has not been taken, was issued in respect of land in question.
6. The legality of the aforesaid Notifications and declarations, which
were issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and subsequent
Notification under Section 9, were challenged by various land holders whose
lands were proposed to be acquired by the aforesaid notifications. The
appellants/predecessor in-interest of the appellants also filed similar writ petitions
in the High Court of Delhi challenging the legality and validity of the notification
and declaration under which their land was proposed to be acquired. Smt. Meera
Sahni filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1003 of 1983, Smt. Padma Mahant filed Civil
Writ Petition No.1002 of 1983 and whereas Writ Petition No.1086 of 1983 was
filed by Shri Khyali Ram, the predecessor in-interest of other three appellants,
namely, (1) Sapphire Sales (P) Ltd. (2) Zircon Trading (P) Ltd. and (3) Eternal
Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The said writ petitions were finally heard along with few other
letters patent appeals, and all the writ petitions and the letters patent appeals were
4
dismissed. The said decision was rendered By the Delhi High Court on
01.12.1995 under the title Roshanara Begum v. Union of India reported in 61
(1996) DLT 206. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the writ
petitioners preferred appeals in this Court. Some of the cases which were pending
in the High Court and pertained to the identical issue were also transferred to this
Court. A number of contentions were raised before this Court challenging the
legality of the orders passed by the High Court and also challenging the
acquisition proceedings of lands of the appellants which were proposed to be
acquired for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. After considering in-
depth all the submissions made, this Court by the judgment and order dated
01.11.1996, under the title Murari and others v. Union of India and others
reported in (1997) 1 SCC 15 dismissed the said appeals and upheld the acquisition
proceedings.
7. After the abovementioned decision of this Court on 01.11.1996 in
Murari's case (supra) upholding the acquisition proceedings the Land
Acquisition Officer in terms of the order passed by this court, on 12.12.1997
award was made and the same was published in respect of the aforementioned
acquired land.
5
8. Being aggrieved by the said award Mrs. Meera Sahni and Padma
Mahant filed Review Petition Nos.103/99 and 104/99 respectively before the
High Court and thereafter filed second substantive Writ Petition being
No.5918/1999 on the ground that the lands in dispute were purchased only after
obtaining due permission under Section 5 of the Delhi Lands Act and that the sale
deeds were executed in their favour were duly registered with the sub registrar on
05.06.1980 with the endorsement that No Objection Certificate (for short "NOC")
has been obtained. Issue of an order or direction declaring the award and the
further proceedings under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act as invalid,
illegal and void was prayed for in the said proceedings. Seeking similar relief,
Writ Petition No.1076 of 2000 was filed by Saphire Sales (P) Ltd., Writ Petition
No.1074 of 2000 was filed by Zircon Trading (P) Ltd and Writ Petition
No.1075/2000 was filed by Eternal Agencies Pvt. Ltd., enclosing therewith the
possession proceedings dated 27.1.2000. The said three companies purchased the
land from the legal representatives of Shri Khyali Ram under the registered sale
deed dated 23.06.1992. At this point it is worth mentioning that no application for
substitution was filed by the said appellants for substitution of their names in writ
petition filed by Shri Khyali Ram although the same was pending at the time
when such transfer was made and was finally decided in the case of Roshanara
Begum (Supra) in the year 1995.
6
9. The Full Bench of the High Court considered the said review and
writ petitions filed by Mrs.Meera Sahni and Mrs. Padma Mahant and dismissed
the same with costs under Order dated 21.12.2000. Three writ petitions filed by
the afore-mentioned companies were taken up for consideration by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court and same were dismissed by an order dated
27.2.2002. Appeals filed by them were heard by the Division Bench of the High
Court and same were also dismissed on 22.3.2002. Being aggrieved by the said
orders the present special leave petitions were filed.
10. The appellants were represented before us by Dr. Abhishek M.
Singhvi, Mr. Vijay Hansaria and Mr. Anoop G. Choudhary, learned senior
counsel, who took great pains in placing before us the various relevant
documents. It was submitted by them that in terms of the provisions of the Delhi
Lands Act read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, requisite
permission was granted by the competent authority to all the appellants herein to
purchase the aforesaid land from the original land owners or predecessors in-
interest of the appellants and that consequential actions having been taken on the
basis thereof by executing sale deeds and granting mutation thereon, the actions
of the respondents in taking up the stand that transfer of land was illegal are
untenable. It was also submitted that possession of the land was not taken over by
the respondents and, therefore, the aforesaid land could have been released from
7
acquisition by giving requisite permission under the provisions of the Delhi Lands
Act particularly when the sale deeds have been executed and mutation has been
granted. It was also submitted that all the actions were taken by the appellants
and their predecessors-in-interest in terms of the provisions of the Act and also in
accordance with law and the aforesaid transfer having been accepted by the
competent authority as legal and valid transfer, no title of the land could pass to
the respondents only because notification and declaration were issued in respect
of the said land. It was also contended that there was no bar in transferring the
said land although the said land is the subject matter of notifications under section
4 and declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and once the
aforesaid land becomes free from acquisition by operation of law, it could be
transferred as was done in the present case. It was also submitted that if the
aforesaid contentions of the appellants are not upheld, the appellants could be
given an opportunity to file their objections under Section 5 of the Land
Acquisition Act or this Court should give a direction to the Land Acquisition
Branch for allotment of alternative land to the appellants as they were sought to
be deprived of the fruits of their bona fide purchase after a long gap of eight years.
11. The said contentions of the appellants were refuted by Shri Parag P.
Tripathi, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents
drawing our attention to the various records including the contents of the
8
notifications. It was submitted that the possession of the land in question has
already been taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer on 27.01.2000, although
the said fact is refuted by the appellants. On appreciation of the records placed
before us and also the aforesaid contentions which are raised we now proceed to
dispose of these appeals by recording our findings and conclusions.
12. When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a notification under
Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State
Government strictly in accordance with law. The said notification is also
required to be followed by a declaration to be made under Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a notification any
encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of
such a notification would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on
the government. A number of decisions of this Court have recognized the
aforesaid proposition of law wherein it was held that subsequent purchaser
cannot challenge acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the
notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the
declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through
its Chairman and another vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and
others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 124 it was stated by this Court that:
9
"3. ............Having regard to the facts of this case,
we were not inclined to further adjourn the case nor
to remit the case for fresh consideration by the High
Court. It is well settled law that after the notification
under Section 4(1) is published in the Gazette any
encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the
Government and the purchaser does not acquire any
title to the property....."
In Sneh Prabha (Smt) and others vs. State of U.P. and another
reported in (1996) 7 SCC 426 at 430 it is stated as under:
"5. ......It is settled law that any person who
purchases land after publication of the notification
under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The
object of publication of the notification under Section
4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is
likely to be needed for public purpose and the
acquisition proceedings point out and an implement
to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder.
It authorizes the designated officer to enter upon the
land to do preliminaries etc. Therefore, any
alienation of the land after the publication of the
notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the
government or the beneficiary under the acquisition.
On taking possession of the land, all rights, title and
interests in land stand vested in the State, under
Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances
and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired
thereunder......"
The said proposition of law was also reiterated in the cases of Ajay Kishan
Shinghal & Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 10 SCC 721 and Star
1
Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 11 SCC
698.
13. In view of the aforesaid decisions it is by now well settled law that
under the Land Acquisition Act the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the
acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get the
compensation.
14. Delhi being the capital city of India, there was a tremendous increase
in population in Delhi with a consequential demand for land from various
quarters. In order to meet the increasing demand of accommodation for the large
population in Delhi it was necessary for the Central Government and the State
Government to take appropriate steps for acquiring large tracts of land. When
such effort for acquisition of land is initiated, it is but natural and inevitable that
some of the property dealers try to take advantage of the situation by resorting to
various unscrupulous means so as to take advantage of the high and ever
increasing demand of the land. Some of these unscrupulous property dealers
would sometime go to the extent of encouraging transfer by way of sale,
mortgage, gift or lease of the land which is already acquired or for which
acquisition proceedings are initiated by the government. The Central Government
being conscious of such situation and position and in order to impose restrictions
1
and to prevent such large scale transactions or purported transactions brought in a
special legislation called the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972.
15. The aforesaid Delhi Lands Act was brought in as stated, in the body
of the Act, to prohibit any transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise, of any land which is the subject matter of acquisition or in respect of
which acquisition proceeding is initiated or proposed to be initiated except by way
of seeking and obtaining previous permission in writing from the competent
authority. It is true that the said special act dealing with restrictions on transfer of
land in Delhi envisages certain parameters which if satisfied would permit a land
holder to transfer his land to a third party but such transfer is possible only when
prior permission in writing is sought for and obtained from the competent
authority. Section 2(b) of the said Act defines the word "competent authority",
whereas Section 2(e) of the said Act defines the word "scheme". Both the
definitions, as found in the Act, are extracted hereinbelow:
2(b). "competent authority" means any person or
authority authorized by the Administrator, by notification in
the Official gazette, to perform the functions of the
competent authority under this Act for such areas as may be
specified in the notification.
2(e) "Scheme" means the scheme of acquisition of land
for the planned development of Delhi and includes any
scheme, project or work to be implemented in pursuance of
the provisions of the Delhi Master Plan as approved by the
1
Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 9 of
the Development Act."
Relevant for our purpose are the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 which read as
under:
"4. Regulation on transfer of lands in relation to
which acquisition proceedings have been initiated - No
person shall, except with the previous permission in writing
of the competent authority, transfer or purport to transfer by
sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part
thereof situated in the Union territory of Delhi, which is
proposed to be acquired in connection with the Scheme and
in relation to which a declaration to the effect that such land
or part thereof is needed for a public purpose having been
made by the Central Government under Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Central Government has
not withdrawn from the acquisition under Section48 of the
Act.
5. Application for grant of permission for transfer
under section 4 - (1) Any person desiring to transfer any
land referred to in section 4 by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise may make an application in writing to the
competent authority containing such particulars as may be
prescribed.
(2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1),
the competent authority shall, after making such inquiries
as it deems fit, may, by order in writing, grant or refuse to
grant the permission applied for.
(3) The competent authority shall not refuse to grant the
permission applied for under this section except on one or
more of the following grounds, namely:-
(i) that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for
the effective implementation of the Scheme.
1
(ii) that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for
securing the objects of the Delhi Development Authority
referred to in section 6 of the Development Act.
(iii) that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for
any development within the meaning of clause (d) of
section 2 of the Development Act or for such things as
public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads,
housing, recreation, industry, business, markets, schools
and other educational institutions, hospitals and public open
spaces and other categories of public uses.
(4) Where the competent authority refuses to grant the
permission applied for, it shall record in writing the reasons
for doing so and a copy of the same shall be communicated
to the applicant.
(5) Where within a period of thirty days of the date of
receipt of an application under this section the competent
authority does not refuse to grant the permission applied for
or does not communicate the refusal to the application, the
competent authority shall be deemed to have granted
permission applied for."
Section 6 of the said Act, on the other hand, envisages filing of an appeal by any
aggrieved person against any order passed by the competent authority. On receipt
of an appeal of the aforesaid nature, if any, filed by any aggrieved person, the
prescribed authority has to give a hearing to the applicant and thereafter the said
appeal is required to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. It is also
provided in the said section that every order made by the prescribed authority
would be final. Section 8 deals with the restrictions on registration of transfer of
land. The said section reads as under:
1
"8. Restrictions on registration of transfers of land -
Notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law for
the time being in force, where any document required to be
registered under the provisions of clause (a) to clause (e) of
sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908,
purports to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise any land or part thereof referred to in section 4,
no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register
any such document unless the transferor produces before
such registering officer a permission in writing of the
competent authority for such transfer."
Section 11 of the Delhi Lands Act deals with the rule making power. It provides
that the Administrator may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for
carrying out the purposes of the said Act. Rule 3 of the Delhi Lands (Restriction
on Transfer) Rules, 1972 envisages that an application under Section 5 of the
Delhi Lands Act is to be made by every person seeking permission of the
competent authority. The said application has to be made in duplicate in Form I.
It is also provided that on receipt of such an application the competent authority
may make such enquiries as may be deemed necessary before passing final orders.
Form II provides the format in which an appeal under section 6 of the Delhi Lands
Act could be filed.
16. In the backdrop of the aforementioned provisions of law it would,
therefore, be necessary to ascertain and determine now as to whether the
appellants have been given such requisite permission to transfer land by the
1
competent authority, as provided under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
The appellants have placed copies of their respective sale deeds through which
they have allegedly acquired the title of the land in question from the original land
holders. Copies of the orders passed by the Tehsildar (Notification) on behalf of
Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Delhi allegedly granting
permission for transfer and alleged NOC obtained by the predecessors in-interest
of the appellants are also placed on record by the appellants to fortify their
arguments that the orders were passed by the competent authority under the
provisions of the Act and also to support their claim that the transaction of sale
was performed validly and that the land stood transferred in their favour with
mutations granted.
17. What was placed by the appellants before us in support of their claim
were two non statutory formats. One of the formats was under the caption
"Statement to be furnished to the Registering Officer for Ensuring non
contravention of Section 8 of the Delhi Lands Registration of Transfer Act, 1972"
and the other format, allegedly an order to be passed by the Tehsildar or an
Additional District Magistrate. In order to properly appreciate, one of the
letter/permission is extracted herein below:
"OFFICE OF
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE(LA) DELHI
1
No 4173 (The Notification) Dated 27/5/92
To WARNING
The Sub Registrar,
The Report is being sent from acquisition
Sub District No III point of view and this office has got no
Delhi/New Delhi responsibility for any defective title of the
land/ownership etc. in the (sic)
(i) As per records available in the office the property/land the
details of which are given in the statement has been acquired under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
OR
(ii) The property/land the details of which are given in the
statement stands notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 vide Notification No._______ Dated___________
OR
(iii) The property/land bearing Mpl No. Khasra No.
____________________(Sic) the details of which are
given in the statement has not been notified so far under Section of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 this information is valid for a period
of 30 days from the date of issue.
Sd/-
27/5/92
For Tehsildar Notification
For Additional District Magistrate
(LA) Delhi
(Clauses not applicable should be deleted )"
The requirement of the statute is that such permission for transfer of land by way
of sale, mortgage, lease, gift or otherwise of the aforesaid nature could be so
registered by the registering authority only when permission is granted by the
competent authority in terms of the requirement of the statute. Permission to
transfer or refusing to grant transfer any such land is to be given by the competent
1
authority and such permission is to be obtained prior to the transaction entered
into, which must be in writing. At this stage we may refer to the copy of the
notification issued by the Delhi Administration: Delhi (Land & Building
Department) Vikas Bhavan; New Delhi of NCT, Delhi dated 11th August, 1972
which reads as under:
"No.F1(1)/72- L&B
NOTIFICATION
In super cession of this Administration Notification
of even number dated the 10th August, 1972 the
Administration of Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of
the power conferred under Section 2(b) of the Delhi Lands
(Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972, is pleased to authorize
the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Delhi
Administration, Delhi to perform the function of the
competent authority under the aforesaid Act for the whole
of the Union Territory of Delhi.
(R.N. Puri)
Deputy Secretary (L & B)
Delhi Administration"
The competent authority as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the aforesaid Act is,
therefore, the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Delhi Administration and
he is the only authorized competent person to exercise the powers vested under
sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Delhi lands Act. No other authority or anyone else,
subordinate to him was ever authorized to exercise the aforesaid power.
1
18. On perusal of the documents placed on record we find that the
permission/NOC which is referred to and relied on by all the appellants herein
appears to have been issued not by the Additional District Magistrate, who is the
competent authority in the present case. The same appears to have been issued by
some person signing for Tehsildar and for Additional District Magistrate. In any
case Tehsildar is also not authorized to act as a competent authority as envisaged
under Section 5, 6 and 8 of the Delhi Lands Act. Neither were we informed nor
was any evidence placed on record identifying the authority or the person on
whose instructions the aforesaid two documents were prepared. Therefore, the
aforesaid documents which are relied on cannot be said to be valid and legal
permission granted by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act
permitting transfer of land by way of sale to the present appellants.
19. It may be also pointed that neither an application, as envisaged under
Section 5(1) is filed on record, nor has any documentary proof been placed on
record to indicate that any enquiry was made which is required to be done in the
manner provided under Section 5(2) of the Act. Three applications were placed by
the three companies, namely, M/s Saphire Sales (P) Ltd., M/s Zircon Trading Pvt.
Ltd. and M/s Eternal Agency (P) Ltd. A bare perusal of the contents of the said
applications shows that they are not the applications which are required to be filed
under Section 5 of the Delhi Lands Act. Those applications were not submitted in
1
the form as is prescribed in Form I. Mrs. Meera Sahni and Mrs. Padma Mahant
have not filed copies of any such application before us. There is nothing on
record to show that the said applications were produced and presented before the
competent authority as pointed out in terms of Section 2(b) of the Delhi Lands
Act. None of the aforesaid applications also indicate that the land in respect of
which permission/NOC sought for is the subject matter of acquisition proceeding.
20. It is by now a certain law that an action to be taken in a particular
manner as provided by a statue, must be taken, done or performed in the manner
prescribed and in no other manner. In this connection we may appropriately refer
to the decision of this Court in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999)
3 SCC 422, wherein it was held as under:
31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of
doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must
be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is
traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426
which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King
Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 who stated as under:
"[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain
way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv
Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. AIR 1954 SC 322 and again in
Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1527. These cases
were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of
U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358 and the rule laid down
in Nazir Ahmad case (supra) was again upheld. This rule has since
2
been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also
been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.
21. The Registering Officer who is required to register a document
whereby the land is purported to be transferred by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise was statutorily under an obligation not to register any such document
unless the person seeking to transfer the land produces before such registering
officer a legal, valid and statutory permission in writing of the competent
authority for such transfer. The aforesaid exception provided in the Delhi Lands
Act for grant of permission despite acquisition is a statutory exception and should
be construed strictly in the light of the said provisions, namely, in the light of
provisions of Sections 5 and 8 of the Delhi Lands Act. In the sale deeds referred
to and relied upon by the appellants it was stipulated and mentioned that no
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued
in relation to the land in question prior to the said alleged transfer. The said
transfer is on a wrong representation of material facts and infact on a
misrepresentation. In the present case the registering officer appears to have
registered the sale deeds illegally and without jurisdiction, as in our considered
opinion, none of the pre-requisite conditions laid down under Sections 4, 5 and 8
of the Act, which are required to be strictly complied with for obtaining
permission to sell or transfer and also for registering the said documents was
complied with, as is required to be done.
2
22. It is, thus, established from the record placed before us that neither
any proper application was made either by the predecessors in-interest of the
appellants or by the appellants themselves, as envisaged under Sections 4 and 5 of
the Delhi Lands Act, nor any valid and legal permission was granted to the
appellants by the competent authority under the provisions of the aforesaid Act.
The transfers made in favour of the appellants by the original land holders by
execution of the sale deed, therefor are illegal and without jurisdiction. We have
no hesitation in our mind in holding that no title could be conveyed or could pass
to the appellants on the basis of such transfer and also that consequential mutation
in favour of the appellants for the above reasons is found and held to be without
jurisdiction.
23. We have also given our consideration to the contention of learned
senior counsel Dr. A.M. Singhvi that it is a case of remand to the High Court so as
to enable the High Court to enquire into factual aspect as to whether or not there
was a proper application and that whether or not, permission as required, was
granted by the competent authority. The facts delineated hereinabove clearly and
explicitly prove and establish that the same did not happen and all the statutory
requirements were totally ignored and overlooked by the appellants and also by
the registering authority. Therefore, it cannot be a case for remand under any
2
circumstances. The responsibility, if any, was on the appellants to prove and
establish that necessary permission/NOC was granted by the competent authority.
They have also failed to prove that the certificate, which is annexed and signed on
behalf of the Additional Magistrate/Tehsildar, could be considered as a
permission/NOC, as envisaged under the Act. There was no valid transfer in
favour of the appellants and, therefore, there is no question of issuing any
direction to the respondents to allot any alternative land to the appellants. So far
as the prayer for granting liberty to the appellants to make an application under
Sections 4 and 5 of the Delhi Lands Act is concerned, we do not make any
observation thereto except for saying that if a statutory remedy is provided for to a
person, he is always entitled to take recourse to such remedy in accordance with
law.
24. We, therefore, dismiss all these appeals and uphold the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and also by the Full Bench which dismissed the writ
petitions and the letters Patent Appeal. The appeals are dismissed with costs.
