Sultan Ahmed vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2003 Latest Caselaw 140 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, A.C.J.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 3.11.2000 the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents to:

(a) denotify and release the petitioner's land from acquisition; (b) quash the entire acquisition proceedings and declare the same as illegal, void and non-est; (c) quash notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively on 13.11.1959 and 16.5.1966, and (d) restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment and ownership of the petitioner from the land in question.

2. The aforementioned reliefs the petitioner has sought with respect to a plot of land meaning 428 sq. yds. Comprised in Khasra No. 147 situate with the revenue estate of village Lado Sarai (hereinafter referred to as the "land in question").

3. The petitioner has alleged that land in question was purchased by him through deed of sale (Annexure P-I). As per Annexure P-I the land including superstructure thereon was purchased by the petitioner in 1966. Mst. Zubeen Begum was the previous owner of the land, which she had purchased on 22.6.1959 from Mahalaxmi Land and Finance Corporation Private Limited. There is recital in the sale deed that "Thata" (boundary wall) and superstructures existed there at the time of sale to the petitioner. There could be no question of the petitioner raising any construction on the land prior to 1959 as alleged in the petition. On 13.11.1959, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued notifying the intention of the Government to acquire an area of more than 34,000 acres in Delhi, which also included the land comprised in Khasra No. 147 situate in the revenue estate of Lado Sarai. It was followed by declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 16.5.1966. Civil Writ Petition No. filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of these notifications as also notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, which was dismissed by this Court in liming on 20.3.1997 in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Murari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., .

4. The petitioner has further alleged that as no award has been made till date in respect of the land and no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act has been received by the petitioner, therefore, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the petitioner's land stood lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 11-A of the Act, on expiry of period of two years from the date of coming into force of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. This being the basic premises the petitioner approached this Court claiming the aforementioned reliefs.

5. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents. Respondents No. 2 and 4 in response to the notice filed their reply on the affidavit of Shri U.P. Singh, OSD (litigation) in the Land and Building Department of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, stating that the petitioner admittedly purchased the land in question after notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act. The very basis of the petitioner coming to the Court that no award in relation to the land in question had been passed, being factually incorrect, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petition was filed on 3.11.2000 whereas in paragraph 11 of the petition, it was admitted by the petitioner that he had filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the Court as far back as on 9.4.1987, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. In any case, it was further stated that the land in question stood duly acquired by award No. 36B/80-81. Possession was also taken over on 22,9.1986 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority and a notification under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act had also been published on 10.10.1986.

6. On 4.3.2002 when the petition was taken up, it was pointed out by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 4 that by mistake it had been mentioned in the counter affidavit that possession of the land was taken over on 22.9.1986. He pointed out that on this date possession of the other land in the same village was taken. However, the date does not appear to tally with the date of possession mentioned in the record, as noticed in para 10. Accordingly, the record was directed to be produced regarding taking over of the possession. On 31.7.2002, again record was directed to be produced, which was produced only on 29.8.2002 on which date arguments were heard and the order was reserved.

7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to raise a controversy as to the genuineness of the award which is contained in the original file produced before us, saying that it is not possible that as on the date when the award is stated to have been passed, the same was passed. He urged that in order to frustrate the petitioner's claim award has been shown to have been passed on 19.9.1986 whereas no such award could have been made on that date. He further urged that in the reply affidavit, particulars of the award are shown as award No. 36B/80-81 whereas in the original record produced the particulars have been changed and the award is shown as award No. 36-D/86-87(Supp.). It was further urged by him that the main award of village Lado Sarai, namely, award No. 36/80-81 was announced on 19.6.1980. The land in question was not included therein. It was followed by various supplementary awards. He produced on record photo copies of other awards, such as Award No. 36/80-81 (supp.), Award No. 36A/80-81 (supp.), Award No. 36B/80-81, Award No. 36B/80-81 (supp.) and Award No. 36D/86-87 (supp.). He urged that the record appears to be forged one land, therefore, enquiry deserves to be made in this matter.

8. In order to satisfy ourselves, we called for the record of Award No. 36D/86-87 Lado Sarai and perused the same. We have seen on the original record a draft of the award prepared by the office of the Collector Land Acquisition and on the basis of this draft fair award appears to have been typed out. Both, in the draft as well as the fair award, particulars of the award were initially mentioned as award No. 36-B/80-81 (supp.) which later on appears to have been corrected to show it as award No. 36D/86-87. However, this correction carried out in the draft, as well as in the original typed award will hardly make any difference inasmuch as there is no change in the contents of the award and there is no reason to disbelieve the respondent that this award was made on 19.9.1986. There is contemporaneous evidence available on the file in support of the respondents versions of the award having been made on 19.9.1986. A letter on record says that consequent upon the approval of the award, notices were sent to the interested persons on 18.9.1986 intimating them that the award will be announced on 19.9.1986 at 10 a.m. Order sheet records that the award was announced on 19.9.1986. Original notice dated 18.9.1986 calling upon the interested persons to hear the award on 19.9.1986 is also available on the file. One Shri Sher Singh son of Tek Ram of village was also stated to be present at the time of announcing the award. The file also contains notices issued earlier under Section 9(1) of the Act and also repre sentations against the notice issued under Section 9(1) of the Act, which are dated 2nd or 3rd September, 1986. The petitioner also lodged his claim on 8.9.1986. Admittedly, the petitioner filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act on 9.4.1987 having prayed to the Collector Land Acquisition to forward his reference for determination of the amount of compensation and thereafter approached the Court after three years by filing this petition with the grievance that no award was made within the statutory period. Filing of such a petition is nothing but a belated act. In the application seeking reference also the petitioner on 9.4.1987 mentioned the date of the award as 19.9.1986.

9. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into force on 24.9.1984. Award could have been made admittedly on or before 24.9.1986. It was made and published on 19.9.1986 within the statutory period of limitation. Therefore, the petitioner's very basis for filing the writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner earlier having filed a writ petition challenging the legality and validity of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and having failed in his attempt when the writ petition was dismissed, is precluded from raising the said questions now in this writ petition, more particularly, after the award was made. The petitioner, admittedly, a subsequent purchaser having purchased the plot in question after notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, cannot maintain a petition to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

10. We have also perused the proceedings recorded on the spot at the time of delivery of possession. On 10.11.2002, the interim order, which was passed in this case, was that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question in case no award has been made in respect of the land. Since award had already been made therefore, there was no impediment in the respondents having obtained possession of the land. On 9.1.2001 proceedings for taking over possession were recorded, which state that the possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 147 min measuring 9 biswas and 582/148 min 0-10 biswas was taken over by the field staff of the Collector Land Acquisition and the physical possession so taken over on 9.1.2001 was handed over to Shri Harpal Singh, Naib Teh-sildar, Delhi Development Authority. Subsequently, on 31.7.2002 again further possession proceedings have been recorded stating that the land comprised in Khasra No. 147 min and 168/1 were taken over by the staff of the Collector after demolition of the construction standing on the land. Both these khasras of which possession was taken on 9.1.2001 and 31,7.2002 pertain to award No. 36D/86-87 (supp) of village Lado Sarai. On 31.7.2002 another proceedings relating to award No. 36/80-81 recorded that possession of the remaining land comprised in 168/2 min measuring 6 bigha 2 biswas over which there exist petrol pump etc. could not be taken over. From the proceedings so recorded, there is no manner of doubt that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, possession has also been taken over and the land absolutely vests in the Government.

11. There is no force in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.