Delhi High Court
Balendu Lohiya & Others vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation & ... on 20 May, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
8.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12007-10/2006
Date of decision: 20th May, 2009
BALENDU LOHIYA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Geeta Luthra & Ms. Aakanksha
Munjhal, Advocates.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPN. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2
and 3.
Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate for the Intervener.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
%
1. The petitioners-Mr. Balendu Lohiya and others have filed the present
writ petition claiming that respondents, viz., Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Land
Acquisition Collector (Central District) had only acquired 194.88 square
metres of land but took possession of additional 28.45 square metres of
land on 7th September, 2001. The petitioners have claimed market value
W.P. (C) No. 12007-10/2006 Page 1
of the extra land with damages with effect from 7th September, 2001.
2. This Court vide order dated 20th August, 2008 had directed the Land
Acquisition Collector to visit the property and submit a report as to how
much land has been acquired and the actual area, which was in possession
of respondent No. 1-Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.
3. Pursuant thereto, a report has been filed by the Land Acquisition
Collector along with the site proceedings. As per the report, respondent
No. 1- Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is in possession of 216.08 square
metres, after excluding the portion shown in red as per site plan at internal
page 4 of the report. No objections have been filed to the said report and
the said report has been accepted. In terms of the said report, Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation is in possession of extra area measuring 21.20
square metres, which has not been acquired and for which compensation
has not been paid.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the intervener state that
they are not interested in asking or calling upon the respondent No. 1-
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to return the extra unacquired land because
the unacquired land is situated in the middle of the property. Building has
been constructed on the land. They claim that respondent No. 1- Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation should pay compensation for acquisition of land
after following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act
and also pay compensation for being in possession of the unacquired land
W.P. (C) No. 12007-10/2006 Page 2
since 7th September, 2001.
5. In view of the admitted position and the location of the unacquired
extra land, which is in the middle of the property on which a three
storeyed building has been raised, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e.,
Government of NCT of Delhi and the Land Acquisition Collector are
directed to take steps in accordance with law to acquire the 21.20 square
metres of land as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
6. On the question of compensation, I am inclined to follow the order
dated 13th may, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C)
No. 165-169/2004, Maha Singh and Others versus Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation, wherein the Land Acquisition Collector in question was
asked to examine and quantify the case of compensation in accordance
with law after giving opportunities to the parties concerned to lead oral
and documentary evidence. The said plea is also acceptable to the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the
intervener.
7. There is a dispute between petitioners and the intervener as to
ownership and right to claim compensation. This dispute cannot be
resolved and settled in this writ petition. The petitioners and the
intervener are at liberty to invoke and file appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the proprietary rights
W.P. (C) No. 12007-10/2006 Page 3
of the petitioners or the intervener to claim compensation. It is also
clarified that in case any third party makes any claim, the same will be
determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.
The writ petition is disposed of.
DASTI.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MAY 20, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 12007-10/2006 Page 4
