I have written many grievances to all departments including your LG office too related to my grievance but DC north and land & Building department has not been taken any action with regards to my grievance.
The Concern officer are not only working illegally but also insulting the Supreme court judgment pronouns by 5 judges Constitution bench special set up for sec 6 of land acquisition act and also to Parliament, who has been given power to make law and ignoring the report of Law commission. Even Constitution Bench of five learned Judges in Padmasundara Rao’s case “fixing another period of one year from the date of judgment for making the section 6 declaration, would amount to legislation by judicial fiat. The Supreme Court observed that courts can only interpret the law and cannot legislate and that if a provision of law is misused or subjected to abuse of process of law, it would be for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal the law. Supreme Court is working within in its position,(attached the file with this email) Hon'ble Lokayukta Justice Manmohan sarin in case C-1373/LOK/2012 said "They (public servant) have to remember that while in office,they are to serve the public and not to rule them".
Land and building delhi issued time barred(lapsed) notification u/s 6 of land acquisition act on the land of our colony situated on the land of village pansali delhi.The Supreme Court of INDIA in the case deep vihar welfare society vs LG govt of NCT delhi(appeal civil 3003/2012) on 21 march 2012, cancelled the notification of Sec 17 (urgency clause) of land acquisition act. Without considering our objection filed u/s 5-A sec 6 has been issued that too after expire of the time period specified under the act(one year) Sec 6 of land acquisition act “After receipt of objections, the concerned authority shall consider those objections, and if found unsatisfactory, then a final declaration rejecting the claims will be issued. Section 6 of the amended Act provides that the final declaration shall be issued by the authority within a period of one year from the date of issuance of preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Act”. Explanation 1.- In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub- section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.In our case Notification u/s 4 No F.10(29)96/LB/LA 11394 issued on 27/10/1999 and notification u/s 6 No F.10(29)96/LB/LA/19599 issued on 20/03/2013,(published in newspaper on 27/03/2013) even if case period excluded still the notification us/6 No F.10(29)96/LB/LA/19599 issued on 20/03/2013 is time barred invalid, void. Law commission of INDIA in his report D.O.NO.6(3)(78)/2002-LC(LS) dt 09 may2002 clarified the time period and said(page 4 line 10 of the report) "fixing another period of one year from the date of judgment for making the section 6 declaration, would amount to legislation by judicial fiat. The Supreme Court Padamsundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu JT 2002 (3)SC 1 delivered on 13.3.2002, observed that courts can only interpret the law and cannot legislate and that if a provision of law is misused or subjected to abuse of process of law, it would be for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal the law.Constitution Bench of five learned Judges in Padmasundara Rao’s case. In that case, the learned Judges have recently held that once a sec. 6 declaration was quashed or set aside, if the period of one year had expired by the date of judgment of court,then the Court could not under its judicial power, provide a fresh period of one year from the date of the judgment.The State, if it is still interested in the acquisition of the land, has to issue a fresh notification under sec. 4(1).In the report Page 7 para 2 line 6 "In law, if sec. 6 declaration was not made within one year as provided by the 1984 Amendment, it would be invalid. Once there was no valid section 6 declaration made within one year as aforesaid, the sec. 4(1) notification issued earlier would also lapse and the State would have to come forward with a fresh sec. 4(1) notification." In report page 10 para 1 "the Explanation inserted in 1984 does not exclude the period covered by the litigation where the various proceedings after sec. 4(1) notification (such as the sec. 5A inquiry) or the consequential section 6 declaration are held to be bad by the Court. This can happen, for example, where the sec. 5A inquiry is held vitiated on account of breach of principles of natural justice and consequentially the sec. 6 declaration is also quashed. The Explanation –I, it will be noticed, only covers cases where sec. 6 declaration is not quashed. In that event, in the absence of a provision in sec. 6, the Court cannot exclude the period covered by the Court proceedings leading upto the date of quashing of the proceedings or of the section 6 declaration. on above ground the declaration issued u/s 6 is illegal (time barred)”.
LG office Complaint No [protected] dt 25/3/2013, on 04/5/2013 when Land and building did not reply LG office. Grievance Officer in LG office on my complaint remark as “Please refer to the complaint that was forwarded to your department. the report of which is still awaited. It is requested that the complaint may be redressed immediately and intimation to this effect may be sent on line to this office.” again on same complaint on 17/07/2013 remaks as "The Grievance is still pending. Please take necessary action on the merit, inform the complainant and update the website." But no action taken even then.
On my another complaint [protected] dt 30/05/2013 LG office remarks “Since the matter pertains to Land and Building Department, immediate action may be taken update the website” The officers were not taking LG office remark seriously.
Complaint no [protected] dt 04/05/2013, on 15/07/2013 LG office remarks "The Grievance is still pending. Please take necessary action on the merit, inform the complainant and update the website."What would you say about these officers. How our voice would get heard if even the comments of LG office were not taken seriously. If i am wrong please do inform me.
Aug 13, 2020
Complaint marked as Resolved 
