Manohar Lal Atree vs Union Of India And Ors.
1990 Latest Caselaw 543 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) The petitioner was owner of land being khasra Nos. 515 min, 515 min and 515 min totalling 8 bighas 8 biswas in village Sat Bari. Delhi. In respect of the said village notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued. The said notifications were challenged in a writ petition being Civil Writ No. 1639 of 1985 Balak 'Ram Gupta v. Union of India and others' . Vide judgment dated 18th November, 1988 the said notifications were quashed.

(3) Thereafter another bunch of writ petitions was filed being Civil Writ No. 51 of 1989, Balbir Singh and am. v. Union of India. In this writ petition it was stated that where the possession has not been taken by the Delhi Admn. they should be restrained from doing so and where possession has been taken the same should be returned. This was with regard to land situate in those villages whose notifications had been quashed by the judgment of this Court in Balak Rain's case. By judgment dated 16th May, 1989 in Balbir Singh's case the Court passed orders directing the respondents not to take possession of land pursuant to the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act which had been quashed. It was further directed that if possession had been taken over then all the land owners returning the compensation along with interest @ 12% which may have been received then the possession would be restored by the Delhi Admn.

(4) In the present case compensation has been received by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the amount of compensation along with interest @ 12% came to 2,82,729.29 and vide letter dated 16th June, 1989 a cheque of this amount was sent to the Land Acquisition Collector, New Delhi. This cheque has not been encashed and nor has any reply been received. It is thereafter that the present writ petition has been filed.

(5) In the reply affidavit the aforesaid facts have not been disputed. Curiously enough there is a reference to the revision petition stated to have been filed but on the query raised by us we are informed that the respondents have in fact, filed a Special Leave Petit against a judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh's case. It is interesting to note that no Special Leave Petition has been filed against the judgment in the main case, namely, Balak Ram Gupta's case. Balbir Singh's case was merely consequential to the decision of this court in Balak Ram Gupta's case. That apart merely that the Special Leave Petition is filed is no ground for declining relief to the petitioner. The present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Balbir Singh's case and another batch of writ petition which has also been allowed. Following the said decision we issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to give back to the petitioner the physical possession of the land in question within one week of their receiving from the petitioner the amount of compensation received by the petitioner plus interest @ 12% calculated from the day the petitioner has received compensation till the date the cheque or draft is tendered by the petitioner pursuant to this order. There will be no order as to costs.