Shmey Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1529 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. At the hearing held on 11.11.2005, learned counsel for the parties did not press for the relief pertaining to claim for compensation.

2. Prayers made in the two writ petitions are as under:

WP(C) 3133/2000:

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, in particular respondent No. 2 and 5, to forthwith desist from carrying out any demolition on land bearing Khasra No. 275 (4-7) and to prevent from carrying out any further demolition on the land adjoining land adjoining the land in question i.e. bearing Khasra No. 258 (24-5), 262(6-4) situated at Village Saidulajaib under Hauz Khas Tehsil, New Delhi.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to compensate the petitioners for the financial loss caused on account of their land after the same had been got assessed by the SDM, Tehsildar.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere or in any manner obstruct the petitioners or their tenants from carrying out their legal and authorised business activities from the structures existing on the land in question.

iv) Issue an appropriate direction permitting the petitioners to re-built the structures which has been illegally demolished by the respondents.

v) Pass any other or such order/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

WP(C) 3160/2000:

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, in particular respondent No. 2 and 6, to forthwith restrain from carrying out any demolition on land bearing Khasra No. 261(7-13), 264(6-7), 153 (1-16), 64(4-12), 93 (6-7), 151 (2-17), 371/184/214 (2-15), 383/212/ 213 (4-8), 389/215 (3-0.13), 183/212 (1-0.7), 187 (2-0.1), 186 (0-.6) all situated at Village Saidulajaib under Hauz Khas Tehsil, New Delhi.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere or in any manner obstruct the petitioners or their tenants from carrying out their legal and authorised business activities from the structures existing on the land in question.

iii) Pass any other or such order/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3. I need not, therefore, decide qua prayer No. 2.

4. Petitioners in WP(C) 3133/2000 plead that they had earlier on filed WP(C) 894/89. Petitioners in WP(C) 3160/2000 plead that they had earlier on filed WP(C) 2823/88. This fact has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit.

5. The two writ petitions, along with a batch of other writ petitions were disposed of by a Division bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.5.1989. The order reads as under:

Present: Mr. N.S.Vashisht for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Jain for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Muni Lal Jain for respondent 4.

CW. No. 51/89 & C.M. 70/89

This order will disposed of Cws.1373-75/89, 1376/89, 1378-79/89, 1112-13/89, 1377/89, 1126/89, 1281/89, 1065-71/89, 2823/88, 51/89, 388/89, 907/89, 903/89, 945/89, 965/89, 1008-9/89, 1598/88, 1252-58/89, 1250/89, 894/89, 517/89, 518/89, 495/89, 545/89, 569/89, 578/89, 980/89, 989-992/89, 2602/88, 2601/88, 2842/88, 2841/88, 2840/88, 2813/88, 2814/88, 2815/88, 2816/88, 2817/88, 1114-1121/89, 1082-83/89, 1081/89, 1072-79/89, 1386/89, 1362/89, 1380/89. Proceedings under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act right up to the stage of Award relating to villages, namely, Khan Pur, Saida-ul-Ajaib, Tigri, Shayoor Pur, Setbari, Chattar Pur, Raj Pur Khurd, Maidan Ghari, have been quashed by a Division Bench of this court in Balak Ram Gupta v. U.O.I. CWP. No. 1639/85, decided on 14th October,1988/18th November,1988. The prayer of the petitioners is that in spite of that judgment, the respondents are trying to take possession of the land.

The Delhi Administration as also the Delhi Development Authority have taken up a very fair stand before us. Their contention is that certain land owners have received compensation and as such they should not be allowed to deal with the land till the compensation is paid back to the Delhi Administration with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date they received the payment till the date they have refunded the amount. The contention raised is quite fair and is accepted. It is further stated by learned counsel for the respondents that no effort would be made to take possession of any land from anybody and the possession already taken of these lands will be restored back to the land owners on receipt of the refund of compensation, if made with interest. It is further contended that in certain cases, the land owners have been allotted alternative plots in lieu of their land having been acquired and in those cases, the alternative plots must be surrendered before the land owners can take advantage of the quashing of the notifications. The counsel for the petitioners accepts this suggestion of the respondents. Consequently, we direct that the possession of the petitioners will not be disturbed except in cases where the compensation has been received by the land owners or alternate plots have been allotted, until the compensation amount and the alternate plot is surrendered. Counsel for the petitioners agree that the land owners who have received compensation or have been allotted alternate plots would surrender the same as indicated above within two months from today. All other land owners who have neither received compensation nor any alternate plot are free to deal with their lands the way their like and their possession will not be disturbed by the respondents. Delhi Administration will see to it that the Revenue records are amended accordingly. The proper authority i.e. The Land Acquisition Collector will receive the refund of compensation with 12 per cent interest per annum as well as the surrender of the alternate plots when and if ordered. The writ petitions are disposed of in these terms.

6. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order dated 16.5.1989 has attained finality.

7. As per the petitioners, in compliance with the directions issued vide order dated 16.5.1989, being a condition precedent for the acquisition to be quashed, they returned the compensation received by them together with interest as directed. Accordingly, claim of the petitioners is that the respondents cannot dispossess them from the writ lands.

8. In proof of having returned the compensation received, writ petitioners of WP(C) 3160/2000 have filed as Annexure P.4 a communication addressed on 27.1.1994 by the LAC to the Tehsildar, Mehrauli stating that the compensation received for the lands in question by the bhumidars has been returned together with interest. Said document is an admitted document. Further, the writ petitioners have filed Annexure PR-1 being certificates issued by the Syndicate Bank on which bank the pay orders were drawn when refund was made, to the effect that the amounts covered by the pay order were credited to the saving bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari by the LAC. The writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 3133/2000 have likewise filed as Annexure P.1 a certificate issued by the Central Bank of India which certifies that the bankers' cheque issued by the Central Bank of India have been encashed by the LAC.

9. Issue raised in the counter affidavit that in view of subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhey Ram's case and Gurdeep Singh Uban's case, is a non-issue for the reason, admittedly, judgment and order dated 16.5.1989 noted above has attained finality.

10. On the issue whether acquisition was complete when possession was taken over and therefore cannot be questioned, suffice would it be to note that qua the lands involved in WP(C) No. 3160/2000, evidenced by Annexure P.3, being the order dated 2.8.1994 passed by the Financial Commissioner in case No. 398/1994-CA, it is evident that as of said date possession was with the land owners for the reason proceedings under Section 81 pertaining to non-agricultural use of land were pending in revision against the land owners where the allegation was that they have put agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Further, revenue record establishes continued possession of the petitioners.

11. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Prayers 1 and 3 are granted in favor of the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 3133/2000. Prayer 1 and 2 are granted in the other writ petition.

12. No costs.