Delhi High Court
Subhash Sawhney vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 11 April, 2017
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 11th April, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2675/2015 & CM No.4779/2015
SUBHASH SAWHNEY ..... Petitioner
Through : Counsel for petitioner. (Appearance
not given).
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
for LAC/L&B/GNCTD with
Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, & Mr.Kushal
Raj Tater, Advocates.
Mr.Vaibhav Agnihotri and Mr.Preet
Singh Oberoi, Advocates for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner is a recorded owner of land admeasuring 15
bighas and 10 biswas comprised in khasra Nos.333, 342 (4-16) and
343 (4-16) which later on changed to new Khasra Nos.28/12 (4-16),
28/19(4-16), 28/22(4-16) and 35/2 (1-2), situated in the revenue estate
of Village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. The said land was
purchased through two separate registered sale deeds both dated
18.09.2001. The petitioner obtained the permission from MCD for
construction on the land and it was granted vide sanction
No.137/A/HQ/24/02/AE(B) HQII dated 02.01.1985. The completion
certificate dated 24.11.1987 was also issued.
2. However, a notification bearing No.F.9(50)/04/L&B/LA/13211
dated 04.11.2004 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued notifying the land in question required for public purpose
namely 'Planned Development of Delhi'. The, respondent No.1 on
31.10.2005 further issued a notification bearing No.F-9 (50)/04
/L&B/LA/9450 under Section 6 of the Act. The respondent No.2
then passed an award bearing No.1/2007-08 on 06.08.2007 pursuant
to the above notifications.
3. It is alleged by the petitioner that till date neither any
compensation has been paid to him nor deposited in the Court as is
mandated under Section 31 of the old Act. Further, the petitioner
alleges to be in continued actual physical and effective possession of
the land in question till date, hence it is alleged that in view of the
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the
acquisition of the subject land be declared to be lapsed.
4. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 in their counter affidavit dated
03.02.2017 of Shri Pranjal J. Hazarika working as Land Acquisition
Collector (South-West) Delhi admitted the notifications issued and
the award having been passed. The relevant portions of counter
affidavit reads as under:-
"8. That vast tract of land including the land
comprised in Khasra Nos.28/12 (4-16), 28/19 (4-
16), 28/22 (4-16) and 35/2 (1-2) total admeasuring
15, bigha 10 biswa situated in the revenue estate of
village Bamnoli, New Delhi was notified for
acquisition for public purpose vide notification
dated 04.11.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Old
Act followed by declaration issued under section 6
issued on 31.10.2005 and pursuant to which an
award being Award No.1/2007-08 was also made
on 06.08.2007 with respect to the acquired land
including the land of the petitioner.
9. That as regards status of possession and
compensation, it is humbly submitted that, the
possession of the subject land comprised in khasra
Nos. 28/12 (4-16), 28/19 (4-16), 28/22 (4-16) and
35/2 (1-2) could not be taken due to stay in
W.P.(C) No. 2140/2007 titled as Subhas Sahwney
Vs. UOI &Ors. So far as compensation amount is
concerned it is humbly submitted that
compensation amount could not be paid."
5. Thus, the respondents though alleged that possession could not
be taken on account of the stay in Writ Petition (C)No.2140/2007, but
also did not deny that the compensation was never paid to the
petitioner.
6. Thus in the circumstances, the Court is the opinion that the
relief claimed has to be granted in view of the decision in Pune
Municipality Corporation & Anr. V. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
& Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 wherein the Supreme Court has held as
under:-
"under section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are
deemed to have lapsed where award has been
made five years or more prior to the
commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the
land is not taken or compensation has not been
paid. The legal fiction under section 24 (2) comes
into operation as soon as conditions stated therein
are satisfied, the applicability of section 6 of the
General Clauses Act being subject to section 24
(2), there is no merit in the contention of the
corporation (emphasis supplied)"
7. Further, in Bharat Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors 2014(3)
SCALE 393, Supreme Court also held as under:-
"Sub-section (2) of section 24 commences with a
non-obstante clause. It is a beneficial provision. In
view of this provision, if the physical possession of
the land has not been take by the acquiring
authority though the award is passed and if the
compensation has not been paid to the land owners
or has not been deposited before the appropriate
forum, the proceedings initiated under the act,
1894 is deemed to have been lapsed."
8. Thus, as the appropriate government has not denied that the
compensation is not disbursed to the petitioner, so in line with the
decision in Pune Municipality (supra) the relief claimed needs to be
granted. The declaration is issued that the acquisition of the land
admeasuring 15 bighas and 10 biswas comprised in khasra Nos.333,
342 (4-16) and 343 (4-16) which later on changed to new Khasra
Nos.28/12 (4-16), 28/19(4-16), 28/22(4-16) and 35/2 (1-2), situated in
the revenue estate of Village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi, has
therefore lapsed in view of the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013.
9. The writ petition and pending miscellaneous application are
allowed in the above terms.
YOGESH KHANNA, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
APRIL 11, 2017
M
