Kuldeep Singh & Ors. vs S.D.M. (Kalkaji) & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 5185 Del

$~45
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 6769/2015
       KULDEEP SINGH & ORS                      ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr Deepak Khosla & Mr Anuroop P.S.,
                    Advs.

                            versus

       S.D.M. (KALKAJI) & ORS                       ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Adv. for R-
                       1, 2 & 4.
                       Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for R-3.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                 ORDER

% 20.07.2015

CM No. 12358/2015 (Exemption)

1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) 6769/2015 & CM No. 12357/2015 (interim relief)

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr Santosh Kumar Tripathi accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1, 2 & 4, while Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.3. In view of the order that I propose to pass, learned counsels for the respondents say that they do not wish to file a counter affidavit.

4. In this writ petition the following substantive prayer is made:

"..... Issue a writ/ order/ direction in the nature of mandamus to respondents No. 1 and 2 for correcting the revenue entries and enter the names of the petitioners as bhumidars as per their share in the revenue records with respect to land comprised in

khasra No. 2206/1046 (9-19) and 1007/1046 (8-01) situated in the revenue estate of village Tughlaqabad, new Delhi, further a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition thereby restraining the respondent No.3 from interfering in actual, physical possession of the petitioners over and above stated land and from demolishing any portion of the super structure, more particularly the boundary wall raised by the petitioners around their land for protecting the same from the encroachers. Further directions be issued to SHO/ respondent no.4 of the area to enforce the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3845/14....".

5. It may be noted that the petitioners had, at an earlier point in time, filed a writ petition being: WP(C) No. 3845/2014 titled: Amarjeet Singh & Ors. vs Land Acquisition Collector (South) & Anr., which was allowed by the Division Bench of this court vide judgement dated 08.12.2014. 5.1 By virtue of the aforementioned judgement, the Division Bench, broadly, ruled that the necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short the 2013 Act) being present, the acquisition proceedings would fail. Consequently, the declaration, as sought by the petitioners herein, in the said writ petition, was granted.

6. Mr Sabharwal, learned counsel for respondent no.3, however, informs me that a SLP has been lodged against the judgement dated 08.12.2014. Mr Sabharwal, however, has not been able to furnish the information with regard to the lodgement number etcetera of the SLP.

7. However, having regard to the fact that a SLP has been filed, counsels for the parties (which includes the petitioners herein), agree that the instant writ petition can be disposed of with a direction that parties will abide by the final determination of the Supreme Court in the SLP. It is ordered

accordingly.

8. There is one other issue which has arisen between the parties herein as to who is in possession of the subject land. In this context, I may only note that this aspect was also raised by the respondents before the Division Bench. The Division Bench adverted to the issue vis-a-vis possession in paragraph 3 and 4 of its judgement. In these paragraphs of the judgement of the Division Bench, it was noted that a "substantial portion" of the land had not been physically possessed by the land acquiring agency. However, that aspect of the matter did not concern the Division Bench while dealing with the relief sought in the writ petition.

9. In these circumstances, I am of the view that till orders are passed by the Supreme Court, the parties will maintain status quo, as of today, as to possession vis-a-vis the subject land.

9.1 Needless to say, possession by one or the other party, and all incidental and consequential directions, will follow only after the proceedings in the Supreme Court are disposed of.

10. The writ petition and the application are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JULY 20, 2015 kk