Parmod Singh vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 5139 Del

$~7
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 04.08.2016

+       W.P.(C) 3953/2001
PARMOD SINGH                                                  .... Petitioner
                                       versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Aashish Mohan with Mr Mohit Kumar.
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Ms Kaomudi Kiran Pathak,
                      Mr Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr Kushal Raj Tater for
                      LAC/L&B/GNCTD
                      Mr Parvinder Chauhan with Mr Nitin Jain, Advocates for
                      DUSIB

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks 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').

2. This case has a long drawn history inasmuch as initially the

petition was filed on 27.06.2001 challenging the acquisition proceedings

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Section 4 notification was

issued on 15.09.2000 which was followed by the Section 6 declaration

under the 1894 Act on 17.04.2001. The emergency provisions of Section

17 of the 1894 Act had also been invoked.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that possession of the subject land

which are comprising of Khasra No.352 (4-16) in Village Bhalswa

Jahangirpur, Delhi is with the petitioner. At this juncture itself, we may

point out that in terms of the notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act the

extent of the land in question was indicated as 4 bighas 16 biswas,

however, the Section 6 declaration was only in respect of 4 bighas. This,

therefore, means that there was no surviving acquisition proceeding in

respect of 16 biswas and the present writ petition pertains only to the

remaining 4 bighas of land.

4. After the alleged possession was taken on 26.02.2001, the

petitioner filed the present writ petition on 27.06.2001 and in which a

status quo order was passed on 13.07.2001. It is continued till date. One

more fact is necessary and that is that the present petitioner had purchased

the subject land by virtue of a registered sale deed which was executed on

20.05.1999, (i.e., prior to the issuance of Section 4 notification under the

1894 Act). The petitioner had purchased this land from the earlier

owners namely Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh.

5. Therefore the situation with regard to possession is that on the one

hand, the respondents claim that the possession of the said 4 bighas of

land was taken on 22.06.2001, the learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that the said possession was only paper possession and did not

amount to taking over of physical possession which, according to the

petitioner, is still with the petitioner. This implies that at best we can say

that possession in respect of the said land is disputed.

6. As regards compensation, it is an admitted position that

compensation in respect of the said land was paid by the respondent/Land

Acquisition Collector but not to the petitioner (Parmod Singh). It was

paid to Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh in two tranches; firstly 80%

was tendered and paid at the time of taking over of the possession, this

being a case under Section 17 of 1894 Act. Secondly, the balance 20%

was paid after making of the Award No.06/2002-2003 dated 12.04.2002.

7. The petitioner has claimed the benefit of section 24 (2) of the 2013

Act on the ground that the award was made more than five years prior to

the coming into force of the 2013 Act (which came into force on

01.01.2014). It is also contended that compensation has not been paid to

the petitioner who was the legitimate owner of the subject land. It is

contended that while the respondents may have paid the compensation

amount to Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh, that would not amount to

payment of compensation to the owner as the title had already changed

hands and Parmod Singh (the petitioner herein) was the owner on the date

on which the Section 4 notification was issued. It is also clear that the

compensation was paid to Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh by the

respondents/Land Acquisition Collector because the land records had not

been corrected and the payment was made mistakenly. We are also

informed that recovery had been initiated by the respondents from Bhoop

Singh and Mahender Singh as far back as on 2004. Mr. Pathak appearing

on behalf of the LAC submits that the records do not indicate as to what

happened thereafter.

8. In view of the foregoing, the factual position that emerges is that

the possession in respect of the subject land is said to be disputed. The

compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and the award has also

been made prior to 01.01.2014. Consequently, all the ingredients of

section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and by

this Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

                 (i)     Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.
                         Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors:
                         (2014) 3 SCC 183;
                 (ii)    Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:
                         (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.

State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:

W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

9. The petitioner would be entitled to a declaration that the acquisition

proceeding has lapsed in terms of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the

2013 Act. It is so declared.

10. Before parting with this case, we may also point out that Mr Pathak

had raised the issue of there being a stay order which had prevented

further course of action on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector and

that should not be to the detriment of the respondents/LAC. However this

point is no longer available to Mr Pathak in view of our decision in Jagjit

Singh vs Union of India: (2014) 211 DLT 15.

11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed as aforesaid. We are

making it clear that the decision in this matter shall not in any manner

prejudice the case of the Land Acquisition Collector in his pursuit of

recovery of the amounts wrongly paid to Bhoop Singh and Mahender

Singh in accordance with law.

                                     BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



AUGUST 04, 2016                      ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
ns