Delhi High Court
Inder Singh Solanki And Ors. vs S.S. Kanwat And Anr. on 15 March, 2007
Author: S Muralidhar
Bench: S Muralidhar
ORDER
S. Muralidhar, J.
CM No 3974/2007 (impleadment)
Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, this application is allowed. Application stands disposed of.
Cont Case (C) 690-702/2005
1. This contempt petition arises in the context of an order dated 28.5.2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 8672-8740 of 2004. The Division Bench of this Court was considering the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings initiated for acquiring the land in Village Palam, New Delhi for the public purpose of construction of an approach road connecting Dwarka with NH-8 through the Delhi Cantonment Area. The Division Bench was informed that several unauthorised constructions had taken place on the lands in question. Therefore, directions were issued to both the Land Acquisition Collector ('LAC') and the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') to demarcate the lands in the presence of the petitioners and their counsel. The Court also directed the petitioners to carry out the demolition of the structures over the land and gave them the liberty to claim the cost of demolition. The specific directions issued by the Division Bench in its order dated 28.5.2006 were as under:
12. In these circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
(I) The respondents shall supply to the petitioners, as stated in para (6) above, demarcation report with proceedings within two weeks from today.
(II) The petitioners themselves shall carry out the demolition, as undertaken by them, of the structure over the land which is acquired vide Notification dated 29.1.2004 and submit the cost thereof to the Land Acquisition Collector. This exercise, they shall carry out within a period of two months from the date when demarcation report is supplied to their counsel and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of such land to the respondents. In case the exercise is not carried out or completed by the petitioners themselves within the stipulated period, it would be open to the respondents to carry out the necessary demolition and take possession of the acquired land.
(III) The petitioners shall also be at liberty to carry out the repairs necessitated as a result of the demolition exercise of the portion of premises that would with remain with them.
(IV) They shall be at liberty to submit the cost of demolition as well as cost of repairs to the Land Acquisition Collector and it would be for the Land Acquisition Collector to consider the admissibility of such claims at the time of drawing the Award.
(V) At the time of taking possession of the land, the respondents shall pay 80 per cent of the estimated compensation to the petitioners in terms of Section 17(3A) of the Act. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector shall try to make the Award as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from taking possession of the land.
(VI) The respondents shall treat the present writ petitions as representations of the petitioners for allotment of alternative plots and a decision in this respect shall be taken by the appropriate authority, namely, the Delhi Development Authority within a period of six months from today.
2. Although there were 69 writ petitioners, 14 of them have joined in this contempt petition stating that the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 28.5.2004 have not been complied with.
3. Replies have been filed by the LAC and the DDA. The DDA has pointed out that the question of granting of compensation and the allotment of alternative plots could not be finalized since the disputes arose in regard to claims for compensation for the lands acquired. The proceedings (Reference No. LAC 5/2005) had to be referred to the court of Shri T.R. Naval, Additional District Judge, Delhi on 25.8.2005 under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act'). Those proceedings are pending. It is stated that till the said reference is pending, the question of payment of compensation and grant of alternative plots cannot be examined. The counter affidavits of other respondents are, however, silent on the aspect of payment of demolition charges.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the names of the petitioners herein figured in the records prepared by the LAC at the time of demarcation. An extract of the said record is enclosed as at Annexure P-2 of the contestant petition. The counter affidavit of the LAC does not dispute this extract.
5. Although in para 12(4) of the judgment dated 28.5.2004 the petitioners were given an opportunity to submit the cost of demolition as well as cost of repairs to the LAC, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly states that there are no documents on record to show if and when the exact details of such costs were submitted to the LAC.
6. Mr. Harshwardhan, Patwari from the Office of LAC, District South-West, Kapashera, New Delhi is present in Court along with the records. He informs the Court that there are some estimates of the costs of the demolition carried out which are available on record but none of these have been submitted by the petitioners.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that given the purpose of the directions contained in para 12 (iv) of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, it would be just and equitable to require the LAC to now treat the details of the cost of demolition set out in para 4 read with Annexure P/4 of the present contempt petition. However, it is pointed out by learned Counsel for the DDA that this exercise had to be performed by the LAC, in terms of the order of the Division Bench, at the time of drawing the Award. Now that the Award has been made on 17.8.2005 (a copy of which has been placed on record) and none of the petitioners figure in the said Award, the LAC has become functus officio and cannot consider the claim for demolition costs.
8. To this Court, it appears that the issue of payment of compensation and consequently the entitlement of an alternative plot has to necessarily await the outcome of the proceedings stated to be pending under Section 30 and 31 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge.
9. As regards the admissibility of claims for reimbursement of cost of demolition and cost of repairs, while the learned Counsel for the DDA may be justified in pointing out that the LAC has become functus officio, this Court is of the view that in order to give effect to the directions of the Division Bench in the order dated 28.5.2005, a direction should be issued to the ADJ to also consider the admissibility of these claims for demolition costs while deciding the claims for compensation for the lands in question. The prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner for a time-bound direction in this regard also appears to be justified.
10. The learned ADJ is requested to try and dispose of the claims of the petitioners herein for demolition costs, along with their claims for compensation under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, within a period of six months from today. The decision by the DDA to allot alternative plots, could depend upon the outcome of the decision of the ADJ. The DDA should take a decision on the said question within a period of two months from the date of the disposal of the reference by the ADJ.
11. With these directions, the contempt petition stands disposed of.
12. A copy of order be sent to the court of Shri T.R. Naval, Additional District Judge, Delhi for necessary information, not later than 20.3.2007. A copy of order be given dusty to learned Counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.
