Delhi High Court
Khushi Mohd. vs Land & Building Department & Anr on 15 December, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~33 & 34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.12.2015
+ W.P.(C) 55/2015 & CM Nos. 90/2015, 18793/2015
KHUSHI MOHD. ..... Petitioner
versus
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 9529/2015 & CM No. 22421/2015
ATTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr A.K. Sen, Advocate and Mr Mukesh
Kumar Verma, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr James Daniel David, Advocate for
Ms M. Sengupta, Advocate
Ms Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for GNCTD
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocates for
DDA
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocates for L&B/LAC.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. Both these writ petitions are being disposed of together as they pertain
to the very same land. The petitioners in these cases claim to be the owners of
the land in question as also to be in possession thereof. A suit for possession
has also been filed by the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 9529/2015 being CS(OS)
No. 2112/2008. That suit was filed much prior to the coming into force of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
2013 Act') which came into effect 01.01.2014.
2. Both the petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act')
which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the
effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which
Award No. 14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter-alia, in respect of the
land comprised in Khasra No. 1097 measuring 13 Bighas and 8 Biswas, in all,
in Village Satbari, New Delhi, ought to be deemed to have lapsed.
3. The stand of the respondents which includes the Land Acquisition
Collector and the DDA is that physical possession of the said land was taken on
14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioners in these writ petitions. From the
suit filed in 2008, which was much prior to the coming into force of the said
Act, it appears that the possession is with Khushi Mohd and it is Attar Singh
and Jabbar who are claiming possession. Thus, it can only be said that at this
stage, the physical possession of the subject land is disputed.
4. As regards the question of compensation, the same has not been paid to
anyone, but according to the respondents, it has been deposited in the treasury.
Such deposit does not amount to payment of compensation as held by the
Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
5. It is, therefore, clear that the award was made more than 5 years prior to
the commencement of the 2013 Act and compensation has also not been paid.
There is a controversy with regard to physical possession but we need not to
enter into that domain, in as much as, the necessary ingredients of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the
following cases stand satisfied:-
(1) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6
SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
decided on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
6. As a result, the petitioners in both these petitions are entitled to a
declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act
in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared. We
are making it clear that we have not made any observation with regard to the
inter-se title dispute between the petitioners or with regard to the dispute qua
physical possession as between the LAC and DDA on the one hand and the
petitioners on the other hand.
7. We may point out that the counter affidavits on the part of the
respondents have only been filed in W.P. (C) 55/2015 and the same have, at the
request of the learned counsel for the respondents, been read as the counter
affidavits in the other writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 9529/2015 because they
pertain to the very same land.
8. The writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
DECEMBER 15, 2015
rs
