Hans Raj vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3712 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 3rd August, 2011
+                           W.P.(C) 3767/2007

         HANS RAJ                                            ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. Mohan Kumar, Adv.

                                      versus
         UOI & ORS.                                          ..... Respondents
                            Through:      Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv.
                                          Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for
                                          DDA .
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may        Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner claims that he was a recorded owner/bhumidar of land

in Khasra No.371 to 375/29/1 measuring 14 bighas 4 biswas situated in

village Khizrabad, New Delhi; that a Notification dated 2 nd April, 1998 and

a declaration dated 20th April, 1998 under Sections 4&6 respectively of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made with respect to the said land and

urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the Act invoked and an award

dated 31st March, 2000 made and possession of the land taken on 8 th May,

1998. This writ petition has been filed claiming that the compensation for

acquisition of the share of the petitioner had not been paid to the petitioner

and seeking mandamus to the respondents DDA and Land Acquisition

Collector (LAC) to pay compensation of the share of the petitioner to the

petitioner. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner upon approaching the

said authorities had been told that the compensation of the share of the

petitioner had been received by some other persons. The petitioner in the

writ petition also seeks the relief of directing the LAC to lodge a complaint

against the persons who had received compensation of the share of the

petitioner.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and the pleadings have been

completed.

3. It is inter alia the case of the LAC that the land aforesaid belonged

to several claimants/owners; that the petitioner had only 1/54 th share

therein; compensation was awarded in the name of the petitioner; that at

the time of payment of compensation the petitioner and other co-owners

appeared before the Naib Tehsildar on 14 th December, 1998 and made a

statement that they had sold their respective share in the land to Shri Prem

Raj, Shri Beg Raj & Shri Giri Raj all sons of Shri Siriya and they had no

objection if the compensation amount was released in favour of the said

Shri Prem Raj, Shri Beg Raj & Shri Giri Raj. It is further pleaded that the

said Shri Prem Raj, Shri Beg Raj & Shri Giri Raj also submitted a

Registered General Power of Attorney dated 22nd March, 1979 and Special

Power of Attorney dated 19th March, 1979 and other documents indicating

that they were authorized to receive the compensation and on the basis

whereof the compensation amount was released in their favour.

4. Needless to state that the petitioner in his rejoinder denies the

aforesaid.

5. On 29th April, 2011 the petitioner sought time to make an

appropriate application to implead the aforesaid Shri Prem Raj, Shri Beg

Raj & Shri Giri Raj who had received the compensation of the share of the

petitioner from the LAC.

6. The counsel for the petitioner today seeks more time to move an

application.

7. It has been enquired as to what would be the fate if the said persons

are impleaded and notice issued to them and they fail to appear in the

present proceedings and/or if they contest the case of the petitioner. The

said factual controversy cannot be adjudicated in this petition and the

parties will necessarily have to be relegated to the suit. As such the request

of the petitioner for adjournment to move the application cannot be

accepted.

8. The counsel for the respondent LAC also contends that the

possession having admittedly been taken as far back as in the year 1998,

this writ petition filed in the year 2007 is highly belated.

9. There is also some controversy as to whether the petitioner would be

entitled to seek reference under Sections 30&31 of the Land Acquisition

Act. Prima facie, it appears that the case of the respondent LAC being of

the compensation having already been released, reference would not be

maintainable and the remedy of the petitioner is by way of a Suit only.

10. The question of limitation would also arise; the counsel for the

respondent LAC on enquiry states that the compensation was released as

aforesaid on 29th January, 2004. The present writ petition was filed only on

5th May, 2007. However since notice thereof was issued and the same

remained pending till now, it is deemed expedient to observe that the

petitioner would be entitled to exclusion of the time during which the

petition remained pending in this Court if the Suit as aforesaid is filed on

or before 30th September, 2011.

11. The petition is disposed of as not maintainable with liberty aforesaid

to the petitioner. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 3, 2011 pp