Delhi High Court
Smt. Raj Bala vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 15 September, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5395/2010 & CM No.10636/2010 (for stay)
SUKHBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv.
AND
15+ W.P.(C) 5398/2010 & CM No.10638/2010 (for stay)
SMT. RAJ BALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv.
AND
16+ W.P.(C) 5399/2010 & CM No.10639/2010 (for stay)
SMT. JAGWATI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1/6
ORDER
% 15.09.2011
1. The three petitions have been filed for restraining the respondents
from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in village Neb Sarai which
the petitioners claim to be in their possession. The petitioners admit that the
said land has been the subject matter of acquisition and award has been
published. They however state that they have neither received any
compensation nor have they been dispossessed from the land as yet. They
claim, that possession of other adjoining lands which were also acquired
vide the same notification and with respect whereto also award has been
published, has also not been taken; that the acquired land has already been
built upon and the colony of Sainik Farms has come up thereon and thus the
entire purpose of acquisition stands frustrated and thus they are not liable to
be disposed in pursuance to acquisition. The petitioners also claim to have
made representations under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
for de-notification of the land. They, in alternative to the above relief claim
the relief of restraining their dispossession from the said land till at least the
decision on their representations.
2. Notice of the petitions was issued but no interim relief against
dispossession granted till now. 2/6
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated
that the possession of the land was taken over on 31 st August, 2005. The
respondents along with their counter affidavit have filed the possession
report of the said date.
4. The counsel for the petitioners however contends that possession in
fact has not been so taken over and seeks adjournment to verify the
correctness and genuineness of the possession taken report filed by the
respondents. He also contends that since the petitioners continue in
possession at site, the said possession taken report cannot be genuine. It is
further demonstrated from the photographs filed along with the petitions
that the structures /buildings of the petitioners on the land continue to exist
and the petitioners continue to be in use and occupation thereof. Reference
is also made to the revenue records to contend that the possession of the
petitioners of the said land continues to be recorded.
5. The respondents along with the counter affidavit have also filed
Khatoni of the year 1998-99. The counsel for the petitioners on the basis
thereof states that even as per the said Khatoni, copies whereof were
obtained on 21st September, 2010, the names of the petitioners continue to
exist.
6. The counsel for the petitioners refers to Corporation of the City of
Bangalore v. M. Papaiah AIR 1989 SC 1809 to contend that the Revenue
record is not a record of title and thus the possession taken report cannot be
relied on.
7. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners refers to:-
a. Rajbir Solanki, Dr. v. Union of India 2008 (101) DRJ
577 (DB);
b. Kamaljeet Singh v. State 2008 (101) DRJ 582;
c. Nagin Chand Godha v. Union of India 2003 (70) DRJ
721 (DB).
and in each of which it has been held that after symbolic possession in
pursuance to acquisition is taken, even if the person to whom the land
belonged earlier continues in possession; he enjoys the possession as a
trustee on behalf of the public at large and that by itself cannot be
considered to be a ground to contend that possession is not taken. It was
further held that it is the duty of the person who is occupying the land to
look after the property and to see that the property is not defaced or
devalued and he cannot subsequently come to the Court to say that actual
possession is not taken and therefore he should be protected and land be de-
notified. 4/6
8. The matter is thus squarely covered by the dicta aforesaid.
9. The counsel for the petitioners next contends that a direction should
be issued to the Lt. Governor, Delhi to consider the representations of the
petitioners for de-notification. However Section 48 is clear in this regard.
The representation for de-notification can be made only so long as the
possession has not been taken. The representation in these cases have been
admittedly made after the date aforesaid on which possession was taken
over. In the judgments aforesaid, it has also been held that after possession
has been taken over, any application/representation for de-notification is
misconceived. Thus the direction sought, also cannot be issued.
10. The counsel for the petitioners has with reference to the Notification
dated 5th February, 1999 has contended that certain other lands
simultaneously acquired have been de-notified. However the present
petition is not for challenging the acquisition but to protect possession and
which possession is illegal in terms of the judgments aforesaid of the
Division Bench. Thus the argument of some other land having been
denotified, is misconceived.
11. The counsel for the petitioners at this stage seeks to withdraw the
petitions.
12. After having taken repeated adjournments and having made an
attempt to keep the petitions alive and after having argued, the same cannot
be permitted to be so withdrawn to re-litigate before some other Fora.
13. There is thus no merit in the petitions; the same are dismissed. No
order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
pp
