Inderjeet vs Union Of India & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1641 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                             Date of decision: 23.03.2010


+                               WP (C) No.4582/1998


INDERJEET                                               ...PETITIONER

                                Through:        Mr.Inder Bir Singh
                                                and
                                                Mr.Rakesh Mehta, Advocates.


                                         Versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                   ...RESPONDENTS

                                Through:        Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for
                                                R-2 and R-4.

                                                Mr.Ajit Warrier and Mr.Ritesh
                                                Kumar,   Advocates   for   R-
                                                5/NTBCL.

                                                Ms.Manjira Dasgupta, Advocate
                                                for Ms.Shyel Trehan, Counsel
                                                for MCD.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?                             No

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?                              No

3.      Whether the judgment should be                                  No
        reported in the Digest?


SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge laid by the petitioner in these proceedings is

to the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1894 ('the said Act' for short) vide a notification under

Sections 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the said Act in respect of the

land measuring 8 bighas and 2 biswas in Khasra No.520,

Village: Kilokari, Tehsil: Mehrauli, Delhi. The purpose for

which this land was sought to be acquired was for

construction of Delhi Noida Bridge Project.

2. There have been subsequent developments which have

material bearing on the present controversy. On

06.12.1999, an agreement was entered into between the

petitioner and M/s Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd ('NTBCL'

for short) in terms whereof as against 8 bighas and 2 biswas

of land acquired out of khasra no.520, NTBCL confined its

requirement to only 122 square yards. This was despite the

fact that in the meantime as per a possession report, the

LAC had already taken over possession of eight bighas and

two biswas of land forming part of khasra no.520. (learned

counsel for the petitioner seeks to dispute this possession

contrary to even the agreement dated 06.12.1999 in view of

other documents on records). The agreement does not end

at this as it refers to other khasra numbers for which no

acquisition proceedings under the said Act has taken place.

These khasra numbers with portions of land given within

brackets are : 574/3 (300 square yards), 604 (1150 square

yards) and 605 (1000 square yards). Thus, a mutual

agreement in respect of transaction for these khasra

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

numbers appears to have been contracted between the

parties.

3. The remuneration paid for this complete transaction is in

the form that while on the one hand NTBCL confined its

requirement to 122 square yards out of khasra no.520 and

further sought the aforesaid three khasra numbers, the

compensation deposited with the LAC was to be fully

released to the petitioner and over and above that a sum of

Rs.22 lakhs was paid to the petitioner. Thus, on the one

hand, NTBCL under the agreement gained rights to 122

square yards out of khasra no.520, 320 square yards out of

khasra no.574/3, 1150 square yards out of khasra no.604

and 1000 square yards out of khasra no.605, the petitioner

was to be paid the compensation deposited by NTBCL for

the complete land in khasra no.520, Rs.22 lakhs under the

agreement and the remaining land other than 122 square

yards out of khasra no.520 would vest with the petitioner as

it was not required by the NTBCL.

4. The aforesaid factual position was giving rise to an

ambiguous position specifically in view of the fact that R-

5/NTBCL by way of an additional affidavit sought to suggest

that even the remaining land which is situated in khasra

no.520 is required by it. We wanted R-5/NTBCL to take a

categorical stand in view of its flip-flop as to where does the

said respondent stand since the land was sought to be

acquired by the LAC for the benefit of R-5/NTBCL. An

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

affidavit has now been filed on behalf of R-5/NTBCL under

the signatures of Ms. Monisha Macedo, Sr. Vice President of

R-5/NTBCL. She has affirmed that R-5/NTBCL does not

require the remaining part of khasra no.520 (i.e. other 122

square yards as specified in the agreement dated

06.12.1999) for the Delhi Noida Bridge Project

5. Learned counsel for LAC seeks to put a spoke in the wheel

of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and R-

5/NTBCL claiming that it had taken over possession of the

land acquired and handed it over to R-5/NTBCL. It is

pleaded that the possession having been deprived from the

petitioner, no challenge to the acquisition proceedings is

maintainable and even an application under Section 48 of

the said Act would not lie. It has been further pleaded that

Khasra no.520 of 8 bighas and 6 biswas has been acquired

under the said Act and rights given to R-5/NTBCL were only

for a period of 31 years approximately.

6. Even though the aforesaid may be true, we feel that learned

counsel for LAC has lost sight of the fact that the LAC does

not acquire the land for itself but for a public purpose. The

land was acquired for a specific purpose of R-5/NTBCL at the

request of the petitioner-Company for a particular project.

The position as it stands today is that after the land had

vested in R-5/NTBCL, R-5/NTBCL in turn had entered into a

private arrangement with the petitioner for its own benefit

as it wanted some additional land from the petitioner

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

without even going through the process of acquisition

under the said Act. In view of this mutual arrangement, the

petitioner has made available certain additional land to R-

5/NTBCL which in turn gives up the rights to a part of the

land acquired for its benefit and seeks to let the petitioner

enjoy the benefits of the land. Till the rights of R-5/NTBCL

subsist in the land, neither the LAC nor anyone else would

have a role to play.

7. In view of the mutual agreement having been arrived at

between the petitioner and R-5/NTBCL in respect of the land

of the petitioner not forming subject matter of acquisition

under the said Act with correspondingly R-5/NTBCL giving

up rights in respect of a part of the land of the petitioner

acquired under the said Act and vesting with R-5/NTBCL, no

further directions are required to be passed in the matter

except that the petitioner and R-5/NTBCL will remain bound

by their mutual agreement.

8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

MARCH 23, 2010                                          VEENA BIRBAL, J.
dm

_____________________________________________________________________________________________