Delhi High Court
Raghubir Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: 126 (2006) DLT 399
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2004 by which the writ petition was dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.
3. The prayer in the writ petition was to quash the Award dated 26th July, 1969 under the Land Acquisition Act, with respect to the land in question, and for a mandamus directing the respondents to hand over peaceful possession of the land measuring 220 sq.yds. falling in Khasra No. 102 situated at School Block of Village Shakarpur, Illaqua Shahdara, Delhi.
4. It transpires that in respect of the land in question, proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act and an Award dated 26.7.1969 was given, copy of which is Annexure-C to the writ petition.
5. It is alleged in para 3 of the writ petition that despite the Award, physical possession of the land in question was never taken from the original owners, nor were they paid compensation. In para 4 of the petition it is alleged that in 1971 the original owners started selling the land to prospective buyers, and the respondents did not take any step to stop the sales. It is alleged that in this way in a very short time the entire land was occupied by the buyers who built their houses etc. on the same, and thereby a number of unauthorized colonies came up on the land covered by the Award dated 26.7.1969. The petitioner is one such buyer.
6. In para 7 of the writ petition it is alleged that the land in question had been acquired by the respondents for Planned Development of Delhi, but the said project was subsequently abandoned by the respondents, and the colonies erected thereon were regularized. It is alleged in para 9 that possession of the land purchased by the petitioner by Sale Deed dated 30.3.1971 throughout remained with him. All of a sudden in the year 1996 the D.D.A. employees came on the site and demolished the petitioner's room measuring 9' x 10' and forcibly entered into possession of the plot.
7. A counter-affidavit was filed by the D.D.A. and we have perused the same. It is alleged therein that the land has been acquired through Award dated 26.7.1969 and placed at the disposal of the D.D.A. vide notification under Section 22(1) F-8 (63- L and H) dated 16.2.1972. There is no possession of the petitioner at the site. The disputed land is under fencing of the D.D.A., and is in the possession of the D.D.A. Horticulture Department. It falls in Khasra No. 101 and not 102. The respondents have relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Krishan Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 1996 S.C. 2677.
8. Having heard learned counsels, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal.
9. As observed by learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, the petitioner has given up the prayer sought in the original petition that the land be declared to be de-notified from acquisition. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that he cannot now question the Award. Moreover, there was an alternative remedy of questioning the Award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence we are of the opinion that a writ petition should not be entertained in this connection.
10. The learned Single Judge has also held that the possession has been taken of the land in question though this fact has been disputed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner admitted that the room constructed on the land in question was demolished. In the original petition he did not dispute that he was dispossessed but by an amendment he claimed that he had not been dispossessed.
11. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the petitioner cannot raise this issue now, particularly since the Award is not under challenge.
12. We fully agree with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The regularisation plan of Harijan Basti came to be finalized somewhere in the year 1983. The land in question is shown as falling in a green area as per the regularisation plan.
13. We are in full agreement with the learned Single Judge that disputed questions of fact cannot be raised in a writ petition.
14. Appeal dismissed.
