Sri Ram Chander Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
1998 Latest Caselaw 617 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. The petitioners have sought quashing of notification (annexure-Pl) dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") along with the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act notified through notification (annexure-P.2) dated 26.12.1962 and award No. 1686 (annexure-P.3) dated 20.2.1964 passed by the Collector Land Acquisition with respect to their land ad measuring approximately 3,000 sq. yards comprised in khasra No.165, situate in village Chowkri Mubarkabad, Trinagar, Delhi, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 25.2.1994.

2. It is alleged that there has been inordinate, unreasonable and un-explained delay on the part of the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings in as much as the possession has not been taken over so far. None of the petitioners have received any compensation for acquisition of their property. It is alleged that powers conferred upon the respondents under the provisions of the Act have been exercised for extraneous and irrelevant considerations. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for, in view of various decisions of the Supreme Court. It is claimed that the petitioners' predecessor Ch.Panna Lal purchased the property in question through sale deed dated 6.2.1963 from its previous owner Shri Bode son of Muni Singh. Despite issuance of notification under Section 4, which was followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the award made under Section 11, till date the respondents have not taken any action towards taking possession of the said land from the petitioners or for taking possession of similar adjoining pieces of land from the other land owners. Because of inordinate delay in completing the acquisition process, the entire proceedings have lapsed and the petitioners are entitled to continue in possession and thereby enjoy its ownership, for which purpose the notification and award deserve to be quashed and set aside.

3. The petition has been opposed by respondent No.3 by filing its reply on the affidavit of Shri V.K.Single, Director (Land Management) D.D.A. stating that the land in question along with other land was duly acquired for public purpose under the provisions of the Act. Powers were exercised bonafide Acquisition Proceedings are almost complete. Possession could not be taken over as on some portion of the acquired land situate within the Revenue Estate concerned, there were unauthorized houses constructed by some persons. Possession was to be obtained after demolition of unauthorized built up houses. Possession of adjoining pieces of land have already been taken over but for the demolition of certain unauthorised constructions, which had been raised on portion of the adjoining lands, the possession of the petitioners' property could not be taken over. Compensation was to be paid by the Collector, Land Acquisition. Delhi Development Authority was doing whatever was possible within its competence. The mere fact that there has been delay, will not nullify lawful proceedings, which were validly initiated for valid purpose. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

4. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the decisions in L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P. Deepak Pahwa v. Lt.Govemor of Delhi The Collector (Distt. Magistrate) Allahabad v. Rajaram Jaspal Ramchand and Ors. v. Union of India and Satyendra Kumar v. Union of India . We have considered the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the decisions cited at the bar.

5. There is no manner of doubt that there has been inordinate delay in taking over of possession by the respondents after making of the award. The award, as noticed above, was made on 20.2.1964. Acquisition proceedings would not come to an end merely on passing of award under Section 11 of the Act hut would culminate on taking over of possession of the land under Section 16 of the Act. Only on taking over of possession, the title in the land would vest in the State. Neither possession has been taken over, nor admittedly compensation has been paid. The question that would arose in these circumstances in view of the ratio of the decisions relied upon, would be whether there has been unexplained and inordinate delay or whether there has been complete inaction on the part of the respondents so as to entitle the petitioners to seek directions from the Court for quashing of the acquisition proceedings.

6. The petitioners admittedly were not the owners of the property when the land was notified under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition. The petitioners' predecessor acquired title to the property not only after publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act but even after declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been made, which factor will have to be taken into consideration, while considering the other factors in the instant case. The reason assigned for not taking over of possession is that some portion of the adjoining property was unauthorisedly built up area. As those constructions were unauthorised, possession had to be taken only after demolition. Possession of the other adjoining pieces of land have already been taken over. The fact that there has been some unauthorised built up area adjacent to the property in question is not disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that there are no built up houses or construction on the land in question purchased by them. May be that on the portion of the property acquired by the petitioners there was no construction, that alone will not falsify the stand taken by the respondents that on a portion of land comprised in khasra No.165, there are unauthorised constructions raised and possession was to be taken over only after demolition of the unauthorised construction. Needless to add that even petitioners' predecessor acquired title only after issuance of the declaration. It is only in those cases were inordinate delay is unexplained that Court might take into consideration this fact that because of undue delay whole purpose of acquisition has been frustrated. The question of inordinate delay and completing the acquisition proceedings was considered by Full Bench of this Court in Roshnara Begun v. Union of India and Ors. . After making reference to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court observed that extraordinary and unreasonable delay in completing the acquisition proceedings would be a good ground for quashing of the acquisition proceedings but taking note of the decision in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi 1974 S.C.C. 285, (in which the Supreme Court had put the seal of approval with regard to the same notification under Section 4 of the Act and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, which are subject matter of the instant petition), it was noticed by the Full Bench that in public interest, the Supreme Court had chosen not to quash the proceedings because of delay but molded the relief by granting additional compensation to the aggrieved persons, whose lands were acquired. Judgment of this Court in Roshnara Begum's case (supra) was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court and declined to interfere. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported as Murari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . While approving the ratio of the decision in Ram Chander's case (supra), the Court declined to grant any relief to the persons, whose properly had been acquired except to issue directions for payment of additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. after expiry of two years from the date of decision in Aflatoon's case (supra), till the date of the making of the award by the Collector.

7. In the instant case, after declaration was made, the petitioners' predecessor acquired title in the property. Thereafter an award was made. The only formality, which remained to be completed was the taking over of possession and payment of compensation. The possession could not be taken for the reasons explained in the affidavit of Shri V.K.Single that on some of the portions of the khasra number in question there are unauthorised construction by some people, which fact has not been disputed by the petitioners, who simply state that on the portion of the property in which title was acquired by them, there are no built up houses. As there is no question of any loss being occasioned to the petitioners since the petitioners are in occupation of the property and have been enjoying the usufruct thereof we do not find any ground having been made out in this case to grant any additional relief to the petitioners.

8. Consequently, the petition, which has no merit, is dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.