Sh. Sanjiv Lamba And Anr. vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation And ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 454 Del

JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following prayer:-

"(i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the order/action of the Respondents by which Respondent no. 1 has illegally trespassed the Land/Private Property bearing Khasra No's. 830/756/419, situated at Bagachhi Peer Ji, Adil Shahi Garden Land, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi admeasuring 1 Bigha and 13 Biswas ie.1380 sq. Mts.

(ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents for payment of compensation towards usage and occupation charges amounting to Rs. 8,10,000/- being the rent of the aforesaid property for the period 1.12.2000 to 31.08.2004 @ Rs. 18,000/- Per Month along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the Petitioners;

(iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents for payment to the Petitioners compensation towards damages caused by them to the aforesaid property of the Petitioners amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-;

(iv) to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents for payment of compensation being the current market value of the aforesaid property forcibly trespassed and acquired by the Respondents;

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

(v) to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent no. 1 to immediately vacate the aforesaid premises and pay to the Petitioners usage and occupation charges of the aforesaid property amounting to Rs. 8,10,000/- for the period 1.12.2000 to 31.08.2004 @ Rs. 18,000/- Per Month along with interest @ 18% Per Annum and also pay to the Petitioners compensation towards damages caused by them to the aforesaid property amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-."

2. The petitioners have arrayed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation as respondent no. 1 and the Government of NCT of Delhi as the respondent no. 2 in the writ petition. The petition has been filed on the averments that the petitioners are the co-owners of the land/property bearing Khasra no. 830/756/419 situated at Bagachhi Peer Ji, Adil Shahi Garden Land, Sabzi Mandi admeasuring approximately 1 Bighas and 13 Biswas i.e. 1380 sq. meters. It is submitted that the petitioners were informed by their watchma on 12th December, 2000 that officials of the respondent no. 1 had taken forcible possession of their property and started dumping material on the same. Despite repeated oral and written requests dated 14th December, 2000, 15th January, 2003, 5th February, 2003, 18th March, 2004 and 8th August, 2003, the respondents have failed to comply with the demand made therein to remove the trespass and to pay the damages as afore stated. The petitioners submit that the respondents sent reply dated 31st January, 2003 and 8th August, 2003 to the petitioners which are totally contrary to the real facts. It is contended that the statement made by respondent no. 1 that the land has already been requisitioned by it for acquisition is totally contrary to the position aside and that the respondents have taken illegal possession of the property of the petitioners.

3. So far as title is concerned, the petitioners have placed on record photocopies of the Jamabandi of the land in question since the year 1960-1967 and also the site plan prepared by the Revenue Authority. The petitioners have placed reliance on a possession letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation which is dated 22nd April, 1960 whereby possession of the land is stated to have been handed over by it to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, namely Smt. Ananta Devi ho purchased the property vide an auction conducted by the authorities. The mutation was also effected in favor of the petitioners who are the successors in interest of Smt. Ananta Devi after her death and mutation of this land was duly effected in the revenue records, some of which dated 30th May, 2003 and 22nd May, 2001 have been placed before this court.

The respondents having failed to act in accordance with law, according to the petitioner, it had no option but to file the present writ petition seeking the prayers after stated.

4. The respondents have appeared in answer to the notice to show cause in this petition and filed an affidavit in response. The respondent no. 1 has stated that the land in question is required for construction of the Pratap Nagar station for the metro rail. However, the metro rail have not acquired any land in Delhi by itself. It is submitted that the acquiring authority on its behalf is the Government of NCT of Delhi which acquires the land and transfers the same to the Metro Rail Corporation. Despite a requisition for allotment of the land comprising Khasra no. 830/756/419 for construction of the station, the same has not been allotted to it till date. According to the respondent no. 1, the Land Acquisition Collector(North) vide a letter dated 10th August, 2004 addressed to the Deputy Secretary(LA) had stated that the land in question belonged to the Central Government and possession thereof was with the East Punjab Railways. It was further pointed out by the Land Acquisition Collector that the avenue officials had surveyed the land and observed that the land was lying vacant and encroached by temporary shopkeepers/hawkers. In view of the stated ownership being that of the Government authorities, notification for acquisition of the land under he Land Acquisition Act, 1994 could not be issued. The respondent no. 1 is stated to have requested the Chief Engineer, Northern Railway vide a letter dated 16th September, 2004 requesting for allotment of the land to the Metro Rail Corporation since it had been informed that the land belong to the Railway Authorities. The respondent no. 1 has clearly stated in its affidavit that the land was not being allotted to it and that it is still at the stage of getting allotment of the land. The respondents have disputed any liability to pay compensation or damages to the petitioners stating that the writ petition was without any cause of action.

5. I have been taken through the documents on record and have given my considered thought to the submissions made by both sides.

6. The position which emanates is that the party stated to be in illegal dispossession of the property, disputes the same and has stated on affidavit that it has taken steps for allotment of the land in question to it in accordance with law. It appears that the Government authorities are disputing the title of the petitioner also inasmuch as the Land Acquisition Collector(North) vide a letter dated 10th August, 2004 has informed the Deputy Secretary(LA) of the Government of NCT of Delhi as follows :-

  

"OFFICE OF THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECtor (NORTH) 

1, KRIPA NARAIN MARG : DELHI - 110054
 No. PA/LAC (NORTH)/2004/2677                                        Dated :-10.8.04
 

To,
 

The Dy. Secretary (LA), 

Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 

Land and Building Department, 

Vikas Bhawan, 

New Delhi - 110002.
 

Sub:- Acquisition of private land for Pratap Nagar station of MRTS Phase-I.
 

Sir,
 

With reference to your letter No. F.7(41)/2003/LandB/LA/MRTS(N)/24101 dated 27.1.2004, on the subject cited above, it is to apprise that as per revenue record, the Khasra No. 830/756/419 (1-13) required for construction of Pratap Nagar Station, belongs to Central Govt. and under the possession of East Punjab Railways, the land was surveyed by revenue officials of the Distt. As per survey report the land is lying vacant and encroached by temporary shopkeepers/hawkers. A copy of survey is enclosed.

Thus in view of the above circumstances, the draft Notification under Section 4, 6 and 17 of the L.A. Act 1984 cannot be issued.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-        

(AZIMUL HAQUE)

LAC (NORTH)"  

Therefore, according to the acquiring authorities, the land in question belongs to the Central Government and is under the possession of the East Punjab Railways. The Collector has further stated that it has effected a survey and that the land is lying vacant and encroached by temporary shopkeepers/hawkers.

7. In these circumstances, the respondent no. 1 has stated that it has made a request for allotment of the land to the Chief Engineer(MRTF) Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi vide a letter dated 16th September, 2004 which reads as hereunder :-

"Sir,

Land measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswas at Bagichi Peer Ji Basgh Aadil Shah, Subzi Mandi is required for Pratap Nagar station on Shahdara - Rithala Section of Delhi MRTS Phase-I.

Land Acquisition Collector, North, vide his letter No. PA/LAC(North)/2004/2677 dated 10.8.04 (copy enclosed) has informed that the land in Khasra No. 830/756/419 (1-13) belongs to Central Government and under the possession of East Punjab Railways as per the revenue record. The land belonging to Erstwhile, East Punjab Railway is with the Northern Railway.

It is therefore, requested that the said land may be allotted for Delhi MRTS project. xxxx"

The respondent no. 1 has also placed on record its note sheets dated 11th January, 2005 in support of its contention that it is following up with the Northern Railway and making every endeavor to get allotment of the land.

8. The respondent no. 1 is disputing the case of the petitioners on the plea that the writ petition is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed. It has clearly stated that it proceeds in accordance with law and consequently had sought acquisition of the land by the land acquiring authority. When it was informed by the acquiring authority that the land could not be acquired as it was owned by the Railway Authorities, the respondent no. 1 is pursuing the matter with the Railway Authorities for allotment of the land to it.

9. In view of the a forestated position, it is to be noted that while the petitioner is placing reliance on record of revenue entries to establish its title, there are no documents of title in the nature of sale deeds or allotment by the Government on record. The admitted position even on behalf of the petitioner is that the land was owned by the Government. The revenue entries have been placed on record to show mutation in the name of Smt. Ananta Devi.

10. In the light of these conflicting claims and statements, the position is that even the title of the petitioner is not admitted by the respondents. This question cannot be looked into by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The revenue entries which have been placed on record cannot establish title. In this behalf reference may be made to pronounce of the Supreme Court in entitled Smt. Chandrakantaben wife of Jayantilal Bapala Modi v. Vadilal Bapalal Modi and Ors.; 1996(6) Scale 333 entitled Smt. Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Ors. and the judgment of this court in entitled Rajinder Kakkar and Ors v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

11. In addition thereto, while the petitioners have claimed possession, there is not an iota of material on record to support this contention. Even the revenue record relied upon by the petitioners does not state that the petitioners are in possession of the property. The photographs filed by the petitioners do not in any way bear out either the location of the land or occupation of the DMC. It is not possible to identify the land from the material on record. Additionally even the Will of Mrs. Ananta Devi dated 16th June, 1982 relied upon by the petitioners in support of their title does not state anything with regard to the Testator being in possession of the land in question. The revenue record in favor of the petitioners merely shows mutation on some land in their favor.

12. Even assuming in favor of the petitioner that Smt. Ananta Devi was the real owner of the land who was put in possession of the land on 22nd April, 1960 and that the petitioners derive title from her, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were ever in possession of the land to entitle them to their claim of damages against the respondents even if they had been dispossessed. However in view of my findings with regard to the possession based on the statements of the respondents relating to their survey it is not possible to hold so. On the other hand, the respondents have stated that the writ petition is without any cause of action. The stand of the respondent no. 1 is clearly that it proceeds in accordance with law and that the land has not been allotted to it. It has denied its liability to pay damages of any kind to the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 has placed on record a letter of the Land Acquisition Collector which has pointed out that either the land is lying vacant or i encroached by private shop keepers etc. Even assuming that the petitioner was the land owner, it is to be seen as to whether it can resort to the present petition either for getting encroachment on the land in question removed or for making gains by way of damages in respect of the property.

13. In the light of the material placed on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the respondent no. 1 is not in possession of the property which is the subject matter of this petition. As such it cannot be fastened with a liability for paying damages as have been claimed in the writ petition.

For these reasons, the petitioners cannot be granted the prayers made in the writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.