Delhi High Court
Rajan Sood & Anr vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 30 August, 2016
$~12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 30.08.2016
W.P.(C) 1034/2015
RAJAN SOOD & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Sameer Jain
For the Respondent L&B : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr
Kushal Raj Tater
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Arjun Pant
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 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 that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the 1894 Act‟) in respect of which
Award No.107/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of
the petitioners‟ land comprised in Khasra No. 804/24-26 (5-14) to the extent
of 4 bighas 6 biswas in village Sadhora Kalan, Delhi, shall be deemed to
have lapsed.
2. The petitioners have claimed that they are in physical possession of
the subject land and the same was never taken by the land acquiring agency.
However, the learned counsel for the respondents contend that possession
was taken on 23.09.1986. In response to this, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has drawn our attention to an order dated 09.11.2011 passed in
the petitioners‟ own case in W.P.(C) 7714/2011 by a Division Bench of this
court. The said order reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his grievance to
only two aspects:-
(i). The application of the petitioner under section 48 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Land
Acquisition Act) be decided on merits; and
(ii). No coercive process should be initiated by the DDA
contrary to the directions passed by the Appellate Tribunal,
MCD.
In so far as the first aspect is concerned, we have called for the
possession proceedings and the copies of the record show that
in 1986 some paper work was done.
Undisputedly, the petitioner continues in physical possession
since then. We thus consider it appropriate to direct that the
application of the petitioner under section 48 of the said Act be
decided on merits and on the assumption of the possession
being with the petitioner. No coercive orders qua the land of
the petitioner will be passed till a decision on the application is
taken. In case of an adverse order being passed, the same shall
remain in abeyance till 15 days after the communication of the
order.
In so far as second aspect is concerned, since a judicial forum
is ceased of the matter, no coercive action should be taken
contrary to the directions passed by the Appellate Tribunal,
MCD.
The writ petition and the applications stand disposed of with
the aforesaid directions."
(underlining added)
3. From the above it is evident that the petitioners have continued to be
in physical possession and therefore the plea taken by the respondents cannot
be accepted.
4. We have also inquired as to whether the order dated 09.11.2011 was
taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and, if so, whether order was set
aside by the Supreme Court? The learned counsel for the respondents could
not make a statement that the said order has been set aside. Therefore, the
finding that physical possession of the subject land is with the petitioners
stands.
5. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the case of the
petitioners is that no compensation was offered or paid to them. On the other
hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the
compensation was tendered to one Shiv Kumar, S/o Devi Chand, they are
not in a position to state as to whether the compensation was paid or was not
paid to anybody. In these circumstances, the statement made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition to the effect that no
compensation was paid in respect of the subject land would not to be taken
as correct. We had required the respondents to produce the relevant file
pertaining to the acquisition which was in the custody of the Anti Corruption
Branch. That file has been produced but that also does not reveal the
position as to whether compensation has been paid or not paid.
6. Mr Pathak appearing for the respondents submits that in the
acquisition file it is noted that there was a dispute when the notice was sent
to Shiv Kumar with regard to compensation although he cannot say as to
whether the compensation was deposited in court or not. In these
circumstances, as mentioned above, it would have to be taken that
compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.
7. Therefore, neither physical possession of the subject land has been
taken by the land acquiring agency nor has any compensation been paid to
the petitioners. The award was made more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of section 24(2) of the
2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and 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 12.09.2014 by this
Court.
8. As a result the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said
acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject
lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
9. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
AUGUST 30, 2016
kb
