Diwan Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5694 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                             Date of decision: 14.12.2010


+                               WP (C) No.9103/2009


DIWAN SINGH                                                     ...PETITIONER


                        Through:        Mr. I.S.Dahiya, Advocate.


                                         Versus


GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                                    ...RESPONDENTS


                        Through:        Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1
                                        and R-2.

                                        Mr.Sanjay    Jain,  Sr.Adv.      with
                                        Mr.Digvijay Rai, Ms.Ruchi Jain and
                                        Mr.Sarfaraz Ahmad, Advs. for R-3.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.MEHTA

1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?                             Yes

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?                              Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be                                  Yes
        reported in the Digest?


SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the

non-payment of compensation for his land acquired in

Village Nangal Dewat, Delhi on which compensation has

been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector(LAC) vide

an award.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2. A large tract of land was sought to be acquired in Village

Nangal Dewat for purposes of expansion of the Airport

consisting of 287 bighas and 9 biswas of land where abadi

was located. It may be mentioned that there were certain

other agricultural areas also acquired for which

compensation has been paid and which does not form

subject matter of the dispute. Some of the owners of the

structures in land in the abadi areas challenged the

acquisition proceedings. The Airport Authority of India (AAI

in short) in its wisdom decided to settle the matter with the

persons in the abadi area by making a special scheme for

them of allotment of developed land in Rangpuri. This is

stated by the counsel for the LAC to be a total area of 302

bighas. This settlement is recorded in the order dated

02.08.2001 in Civil Writ No.481/1982. The area was

developed and plots have been handed over in Rangpuri

and the land in village Nangal Dewat stands taken over by

the AAI.

3. There was some delay in development of the land at

Rangpuri and the occupants of the abadi did not want to

shift until sufficient time was available with them to

construct on their Rangpuri property as they would have to

shift their houses. The question of extension of time came

to be raised in a writ petition filed before this Court and

even appeals filed thereafter. Orders were passed in LPA

No.441/2007 and connected matters on 10.07.2007 in this

behalf whereby the rights of both the parties were balanced

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

and directions were passed with regard to the period of

completion of construction on plot and shifting of the abadi

people. In the said order categorical observations were

made to the effect that these abadi people are entitled to

receive compensation in lieu of their land in terms of

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („the said Act‟

for short) in addition to the alternative plots being provided

at Rangpuri.

4. The stand of the respondents is that the amount of

compensation for acquisition of the land in village Nangal

Dewat was deposited with the LAC before settlement took

place on giving alternative plots and the settlement

envisages the grant of alternative plots in lieu of

compensation. In a nutshell, the submission is that the

abadi occupants cannot get both the plots and the

compensation as developed plots free of cost are being

handed over and the area earmarked for the abadi people is

almost the same as the total area from where they were

displaced. In this behalf a reference has been made to the

provisions of Section 31(3) of the said Act, which reads as

under:-

"31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.-

(1)................

(2)...............

(3)Notwithstanding anything in this section the Collector may, with the sanction of the[ appropriate Government] instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in _____________________________________________________________________________________________

such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land- revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned."

5. In view of the aforesaid situation, a Division Bench of this

Court on 10.02.2010 considered it appropriate to make a

reference to the larger Bench of this Court on the important

question of law as to whether the occupants of the abadi

are entitled to compensation in addition to the plots made

over to them free of costs keeping in mind the provisions of

Section 31(3) of the said Act. The Bench noted that a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court referred to aforesaid had made

the observations in view of the context of extension of time

for leaving out the abadi people, but in order to settle the

controversy, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.

6. The aforesaid reference has been answered by the Full

Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon‟ble Chief

Justice in terms of the order dated 18.11.2010 where it has

been categorically held that the observations made in LPA

No.441/2007 were on the facts of that case and does not

state the law that a person whose land is acquired is

entitled to an alternative accommodation or site as a matter

of right under the said Act. The same would depend upon

the language employed under any Rule or Scheme if framed

by the State Government. We may once again emphasize

that it was already noted in the order dated 10.02.2010 that

the scheme of the AAI is not to be mixed with the scheme of _____________________________________________________________________________________________

the DDA for allotment of the alternative plots on large scale

acquisition of land as that scheme has own terms and

conditions where plots of small size are allotted for

consideration as an additional measure of amelioration of

the problem arising from acquisition of land. Not only that,

the same is applicable only to land acquired for the planned

development of Delhi by DDA. Further, the right is only of

consideration of such an application as per a Full Bench

judgment in Ramanand vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1994

Delhi 29.

7. We may also notice that the cheque for compensation was

brought by the LAC in the Court and was directed to be

deposited in the name of the Registrar and to be kept in an

FDR for a period of one year to be kept renewed until

contrary directions are issued.

8. In our considered view, the scheme framed by AAI was with

the objective of expediting the public project of the

establishment of the airport and in view of the obstruction

caused by the respondents rather than getting into a

prolonged litigation, the AAI in its wisdom decided to

rehabilitate the villagers on a land of their choice free of

costs giving them almost similar areas as was occupied by

them in their earlier place. This was also in terms of the

mandate of Section 31(3) of the said Act which permits the

same in lieu of compensation.

9. We may also notice that even under the Scheme of the DDA

for allotment of alternative plots on large scale acquisition

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

of lands, the plots are not allotted necessarily co-relatable

to the size of the land acquired and further the persons who

are allotted such plots have to pay for such alternative plots

albeit at concessional rates. Even in this respect, the Full

Bench of this Court in Ramanand‟s case (supra) has held

that it is not a matter of right.

10. In the present case, the rehabilitation has taken place

in an area approximate to the original area of occupation.

Thus money has been spent for making that land available,

for the development of that land and, in fact, the occupants

of the village which was being acquired were not even

willing to shift till full development takes place. It cannot

thus be said that a scheme envisages both rehabilitation to

the villagers and compensation. It is an either/or situation.

The petitioner having already taken a decision to occupy the

land was not entitled to compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a reference to

the meeting held on 16.06.1982 in respect of the matter in

issue and the decision taken in the said meeting. A reading

of the minutes, however, shows that all that has been said

is that an alternative site will be located to shift the villagers

and persuade the residents of the village to accept

rehabilitation programme offered to them. In respect of the

plea of discrimination advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioner, we may make it clear that though some persons

may have been granted both compensation and land, it is

open to the respondent-authorities to take appropriate

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

steps to rectify the position arising from such mistaken

payment.

12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

13. The amount deposited in the Court be released to the

LAC with interest accrued thereon and this amount will then

be made over to R-3/AAI by the LAC.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

DECEMBER 14, 2010                                       M.L.MEHTA, J.
dm

_____________________________________________________________________________________________