Delhi High Court
Kapil Jain & Ors vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 15 December, 2016
$~22
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.12.2016
+ W.P.(C) 3287/2014 & CM 6803/2014 & 9527/2015
KAPIL JAIN & ORS .... Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS .... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Ms Esha Mazumdar.
For L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain & Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For DDA : Mr Arun Birbal.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. In this writ petition, the plea of the petitioners is that no award has
been made within two years of the declaration under Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Thus
according to the petitioners, in view of the Section 11A of the said Act,
the acquisition proceedings would have to be declared as having lapsed.
2. The petitioner's lands are comprised in khasra nos. 15/15, 15/16
and 15/25 to the extent of 500 sq. yards; khasra no. 35/23/1 to the extent
of 1 bigha; Khasra no.15/6 to the extent of 1 bigha 14 biswas; khasra
no.35/23/2 to the extent of 1 bigha 4 biswas; khasra no. 26/19 to the
extent of 17 biswas; khasra no. 22/1 to the extent of 3 biswas; khasra no.
37/4 to the extent of 1 bigha; khasra no. 16/4 to the extent of 15 biswas
and khasra no. 16/7/1 to the extent of 5 biswas. The total extent of the
land in this petition is 7 bighas 7 biswas in Village Shahbad Daulatpur,
Delhi.
3. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on
27.10.1999 and the Section 6 of the Declaration was made on 03.04.2000.
Certain other persons had filed petitions before this Court as also appeals
before the Supreme Court and the same were ultimately decided by the
Supreme Court on 21.03.2012 in Ramdhari Jindal vs. Union of India:
(2012) 11 SCC 370 and several other connected petitions.
4. The case of the petitioners is that even if it is assumed that after the
Section 6 Declaration on 03.04.2000, the respondents could not make the
award till 21.03.2012 because of the operation of various stay orders, the
period of more than 02 years has, in any event, elapsed since 21.03.2012
and therefore, the provisions of Section 11A would be attracted and the
acquisition proceedings would have to be considered as having lapsed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents admit that no award has
been made under the said act pursuant to the Section 4 notification insofar
as the subject lands are concerned. However, Mr Yeeshu Jain, appearing
on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector, submits that a status quo order
was passed in this very petition on 25.11.2014. But, this would be of no
assistance to the respondents because 25.11.2014 is clearly beyond two
years taken from 21.03.2012, on which date the Supreme Court decision
in Ramdhari Jindal (Supra) was pronounced. Therefore, whichever way
we look at the matter, we are in agreement with the submission made by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that the acquisition, insofar as the
subject lands are concerned, has lapsed in view of the provisions of
Section 11A of the said Act.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that
since the petitioners were subsequent purchasers, the present petition
could not be maintained by them. It was contended that it is settled law
that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings
and that such a person would only be entitled to seek compensation.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in the case of K.N.
Aswathnarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka: AIR 2014 SC 279.
7. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents
that the documents under which the petitioners claimed title cannot be
regarded as having transferred the rights of the original owner in favour
of the petitioners and at the most it would have only entitled the
petitioners to claim compensation on the basis of the original owner's
title. A reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of
Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.: (2008) 9 SCC 177.
8. While it is clear that in the context of 1894 of the said Act, the
Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to
challenge the acquisition and would only have a right to compensation,
the position is entirely different where there is no acquisition because the
same has lapsed by virtue of Section 11A of the said Act. Therefore,
there would be no question of granting any compensation in respect of the
said land. The present petition does not seek to challenge the acquisition
proceedings but seeks a declaration to the effect that the same has lapsed
by operation of law.
9. Once the acquisition has lapsed by operation of law, the benefit of
the same cannot be denied to the petitioners on the ground that the
petitioners are subsequent purchasers.
10. The appeal stands allowed and it is declared that the acquisition in
respect of the subject lands has lapsed in view of the provisions of
Section 11A of the said Act. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. The pending applications also stand disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
DECEMBER 15, 2016
ab
