Delhi High Court
Jagbir Singh vs Government Of National Capital ... on 13 October, 2014
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 13th October, 2014
+ W.P.(C) No.1193/2014
JAGBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Neelam Rathore, Advocate.
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Omar Siddiqui, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6.
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi for Mr. Yeeshu
Jain, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4.
Mr.Amit Mehra for Mr. Ajay
Verma, Advocate for Respondent
No.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) No.1193/2014
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions
whereby directing the respondents to restrain from taking possession or
demolishing the 'Hanuman Mandir', admeasuring 5 Biswas situated in
Khasra No.202/1, Village Kotla Migiran, Near Apollo Hospital, Road
No.13-A, New Delhi.
2. The respondent No.5/ Delhi Development Authority (for short
'DDA') in its counter-affidavit stated that as per the land record
available, land falling in Khasra No.202/1, measuring 3 Bighas 16
Biswas, Village Kotla Migiran, has been notified under Section 4 of the
Act vide Notification dated 06.04.1964 for the purpose of planned
development of Delhi. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
issued on 07.12.1966 and the land was finally acquired through award
No.205/86-87 dated 19.09.1986.
3. It is further stated that physical possession of the land measuring 3
Bighas 11 Biswas was handed over to the respondent DDA by LAC/L&B
Department on 05.03.1997. But, the remaining parcel of land measuring 5
Biswas could not be handed over to DDA being built up in the shape of
Mandir. Since the religious structure was involved in the matter, the
same was taken up with the Religious Committee. Later, pursuant to
directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7057/2005, titled Court on
its own Motion Vs. UOI, which is also monitoring the action against
such religious structures, a joint inspection was carried out by the team of
officers from LAC, L&B Department, GNCTD and the Revenue Staff of
DDA. Accordingly, further action is to be taken pursuant to orders of this
Court.
4. It is further stated that the issue with regard to the status of
disbursement of compensation to the recorded owners can be correctly
responded by the LAC/L&B Department, GNCTD. The respondent
DDA had made payment to LAC/L&B Department on account of
compensation through the revolving fund qua award No.205/86-87.
5. Mr.Amit Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.5/DDA submits that Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, provides that the land acquisition proceedings
are deemed to be lapsed where an award has been made five years or
more prior to the commencement of the New Act, but the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not
been paid.
6. Ms. Neelam Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that neither the possession of the land where the
'Hanuman Mandir' is situated has been taken from the petitioner pursuant
to award dated 19.09.1986 nor any compensation has been paid to the
petitioner, hence, such acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of
the petitioner are deemed to have lapsed in terms of aforesaid Section
24(2) of the New Act.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5/DDA
further submits that the issue relating to Section 24(2) of the New Act is
pending before the Division Bench of this Court and if the petitioner is
aggrieved, he may challenge the same before the appropriate Forum.
8. As noted above, vide the present petition, the petitioner only seeks
directions against the respondents to restrain them from taking possession
or demolishing the 'Hanuman Mandir', admeasuring 5 Biswas situated in
Khasra mentioned above.
9. Since the respondent No.5/DDA has admitted that possession of
the land in question has not been taken over till date, therefore, the
petitioner is at liberty to challenge the issue arisen from Section 24(2) of
the New Act.
10. In view of the above noted facts, no order is required to be passed
in this petition.
11. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to file
fresh petition before the Appropriate Forum within a period of fifteen
days from today.
12. Till then, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the suit land.
CM No.2486/2014 (for stay)
With the disposal of the petition itself, the instant application has
become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 13, 2014
sb
