Delhi High Court
Rohtash Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 1 September, 2015
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
* IN THE HIG H CO URT O F DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 17th August, 2015
Judgment delivered on: 01st September, 2015
+ WP(C) No. 7093/2014
ROHTASH SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr L.S. Solanki, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Dhanesh Relan, Advocate for DDA
Mr Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates
for L&B/LAC
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGEMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a declaration that
the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land Admeasuring 900 sq.yards
out of Khasra No.l etc./99 (3-13) now known as Property No.C-115, Gali
No.4, Shastri Park, Delhi-110053 in Village Ghonda Chauhan Khadar,
Delhi-110053 has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of
the said piece of land having purchased the same from its earlier owners. It
is contended that the petitioner has raised a nursery/garden at the said
premises. It is contended that the petitioner continues to be in physical
possession of the land. However, in the year 2013, the respondent through
its officials and employees threatened to dispossess the petitioner. The
petitioner made an RTI enquiry in response to which it was contended that
the physical possession of the subject land was taken over by the land
acquiring authorities and handed over to PWD for construction of a road on
16.08.1983. It is contended that the petitioner purchased the subject land by
a registered sale deed dated 26th December, 2013. In support of his
contention that he is owner of the property, the petitioner has placed on
record irrevocable general power of attorney, „deed of will‟ and possession
letter dated 04.01.2006 and sale deed dated 26.12.2013 executed on the basis
of the power of attorney and rectification deed dated 28.06.2014.
3. The respondent/LAC has filed a short counter affidavit contending
that the recorded owner of the subject land was one Sh. Umrao Singh S/o
Dharam Singh whereas the documents of title filed by the petitioner are from
Mumtaz Ahmed and Ruksana Begum and it is not shown as to how the said
Mumtaz Ahmed and Ruksana Begum are concerned with the subject land
and entitled to execute the power of attorney etc. It is contended that the
Land Acquisition Collector took physical possession of the land on
27.06.1969 and handed over the same to the requisitioning agency and due
compensation was also paid to its recorded owner namely; Shri Umrao
Singh and as the compensation was paid to the recorded owner and
possession was taken way back in 1969, the acquisition proceedings stood
completed and the subsequent purchase by the petitioner would be of no
consequence.
4. The respondent/DDA has filed its counter affidavit contending that
the subject land was transferred to PWD (Road) on 16.08.1983 for the
purposes of construction of a road and the work of road has already been
completed by the PWD and the subject land has been bounded with the
boundary wall of the DDA and the petitioner had sought to grab the land of
the respondents. It is contended that the plea of the petitioner that he has
raised a nursery/garden on the subject land is sham, bogus and frivolous, and
it is contended that there is no garden/nursery existing on the subject land
and the subject land is enclosed within the boundary wall of DDA. It is
contended that the acquisition proceedings of the subject land have become
final, binding and conclusive and cannot now be reopened.
5. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that the
petitioner is owner of the property by virtue of the documents, which have
been placed on record dated 04.01.2006 and 26.12.2013, and the petitioner is
in physical possession of the said land and is running a nursery there from.
6. The stand of the respondents is that the subject land was acquired by a
notification of 1969 and possession was also taken of the subject land in
1969 and was transferred to PWD (Road) in the year 1983 for the purposes
of construction of a road and thereafter road work has been carried out and
today the premises is enclosed within a boundary wall of DDA and there is
no nursery on the subject land and that the petitioner had sought to encroach
upon the said land.
7. The petitioner in support of the contention that the petitioner is in
possession of the said land has filed photographs of the subject land. The
photographs are at pages 96 and 97 of the petition. Perusal of the
photographs establishes beyond any doubt that there is no nursery or garden
on the subject land. On the contrary, there is some construction work on the
subject land as steel girders are seen protruding from beneath the surface
from a part of the subject land establishing that there is some sort of
construction activity carried out on the subject land. The said subject land is
also enclosed within a boundary wall. The photographs show that in some
portion of the land, there is some building material lying. It is the contention
of the counsel for the petitioner that the said building material has been
placed on the subject land by some third parties, which also goes to show
that the petitioner is not in possession.
8. A perusal of the photographs clearly establishes that there is no
nursery on the subject land as claimed by the petitioner. There is a boundary
wall and some form of construction on the subject land. The photographs
clearly establish that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject land.
Furthermore, the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the
petitioner derives title on the basis of the documents filed by the petitioner
because as per the respondents it is one Umrao Singh s/o Dharam Singh,
who is the recorded owner of the subject land whereas the documents filed
by the petitioner have been executed by Sh. Mumtaz Ahmed and Smt.
Ruksana Begum, who in the document claim to derive title from Om Singh
Tomar s/o late Sh. Nathu Singh. The respondents have further contended
that the compensation for the subject land also stands paid to the recorded
owner, Shri Umrao Singh.
9. The above facts clearly established that the acquisition proceedings in
respect of the subject land already stand concluded by the taking over of
physical possession and payment of compensation. The subject land has
also been put to use by the respondents for construction of a road. The
petitioner has clearly mis-stated the facts and has not come to the court with
clean hands. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of
the Act.
10. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition. The same
is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
September 01, 2015
sk
