Delhi High Court
Hari Lal vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 12 August, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Date of Order : August 12, 2008
+ Writ Petition (C)No. 12538/2006
% Shri Har Lal ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma , advocate
versus
Land Acquisition Collector and
Another ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for
the Respondent no.1.
Mr. Sanjay K Pathak, Advocate for
Respondent no.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL)
1. Before commencing arguments in the instant writ petition,
learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner expired
on 15.01.2008 and was survived by his three sons, namely
Mahavir, Satyapal and Sishpal. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Writ Petition (C)No. 12538/2006 Page 1
states that apart from being blessed with three sons who survived
the deceased, no other sibling of Mahavir, Satyapal and Sishpal is
in the world of the living. Learned counsel states that Har Lal's wife
has pre deceased him. Learned counsel states that an application
under order 22 rule 3 CPC seeking impleadment was filed on
09.04.2008.
2. Unfortunately, the same is not on record.
3. On an oral application moved by learned counsel for the
proposed legal heirs of the deceased seeking their impleadment;
accepting the same, we allow the substitution of Mahavir, Satyapal
and Sishpal as legal heirs of the deceased petitioner.
4. Amended memo of parties would be filed in the registry
within two weeks.
5. Arguments have been heard in the writ petition.
6. Deceased Har Lal claims to be a co-sharer of agricultural land
situated in the revenue estate of village Mahipal Pur. Details of the
land are disclosed in para 2 of the petition. This fact is not in
dispute.
Writ Petition (C)No. 12538/2006 Page 2
7. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894 was issued on 23.01.1965. Declaration under Section 6 of the
said Act was issued on 07.04.1966. The notification and the
declaration pertained to agricultural land in village Mahipal Pur
and included the land detailed in para 2 of the writ petition of
which deceased petitioner was a co-sharer.
8. Award in respect of the land covered by the notification and
the declaration in question, being awarded No.2182-C was
published on 29.04.1974.
9. Out of 61 bigha and 2 biswa land of which deceased
petitioner was a co-sharer, except 1 bigha 11 biswa, possession of
the remaining land was taken over on 24.11.1980.
10. 1 bigha and 11 biswa land, possession whereof was not taken
over is stated to be comprised in khasra no.50-1 (min), 51/1, 52/1
and 59/1, village Mahipal Pur.
11. Grievance in the writ petition is that after more than two
decades of the publication of the award, possession of 1 bigha and
11 biswa land cannot be taken over. Prayer made is to quash the
award dated 29.04.1974 with further prayer to restrain the
Writ Petition (C)No. 12538/2006 Page 3
respondents from taking possession of the balance land
possession whereof was not taken over.
12. In the counter affidavit it has been explained that certain
acquired land could not be taken possession of on account of being
heavily built upon. That the acquisition was for purposes of the
planned development of Delhi. That the built upon land was
required for utilization by the Airport Authority of India a little late,
possession whereof was taken over on 3.8.2006.
13. After attempting to argue the writ petition in respect of the
first prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that
the issue is squarely covered by the decision reported as
119(2005)DLT 458 (DB) Balwant & Others Vs. UOI & others,
Counsel urges that the writ petition may be disposed of granting
relief to the petitioner pari-materia with the relief granted by the
Division Bench in Balwant's case (supra).
14. Declining to quash an acquisition on account of delay in
taking over possession of the acquired land, Division Bench of this
court noted the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the decision reported as (1977) 1 SCC, 15, Murari & ors Vs. UOI &
ors and disposed of the writ petition filed by Balwant & ors
Writ Petition (C)No. 12538/2006 Page 4
recording that the relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Murari's case would be the relief which needs to be granted to
Balwant & ors.
15. We do likewise.
16. In Murari's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on account
of the delay occasioned in the acquisition, recompense was
required for the land owners. Recompense was as follows:-
The transfer cases are allowed in terms of
the order made in the case of Ram Chand
directing that the transfer petitioners and
the appellants shall be paid an additional
amount of compensation to be calculated at
the rate of 12 per cent per annum, after the
expiry of two years from the date of decision
of Aflatoon case i.e. 23.8.1974 till the date
of making of the awards by the Collector, to
be calculated with reference to the market
value of the land in question on the date of
notification under section 4(1) of the Act. In
the facts and circumstances of the case we
make no order as to costs.''
Writ Petition (C)No. 12538/2006 Page 5
17. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of declining the
relief as prayed for but with a direction to the respondents to pay
money to the petitioners in terms of the direction issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murari's case and as noted above but
restricted to the balance land possession whereof was taken over
on 03.08.2006.
18. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
August 12, 2008
DKG
Writ Petition (C)No. 12538/2006 Page 6
