Delhi High Court
Khazan Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 2017
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 11th April, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9127/2015 & CM No.20755/2015
KHAZAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Arun Kumar Kaushik, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Siddharth Panda, Adv. for L& B
Mr.Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
Mr.Rajesh Kumar with Ms.Santwana,
Advs. for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.(Oral)
1. The facts alleged are that the petitioner is co-owner to the
extent of his 1/2 share of the 1/4th joint share in Khasra Nos.228/1 (2-
16), 229 (4-40), 230/1(2-12), 250 (4-16), 251 (4-16), 252/2 (2-16),
269/1 (2-00), 270 (4-16), the total land admeasuring 28 bighas 16
biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Kotla Mahigram,
Tehsil Mehruali, Delhi.
2. The said land was sought to be acquired along with large chunk
of land admeasuring 625 bighas and 12 biswas of village Kotla
Mahigram, Tehsil Mehruali, Delhi. The notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the old Act) was issued on
06.04.1964 for planned development of Delhi. Thereafter, the
declaration under Section 6 (as per the old Act) was published on
07.12.1966. The award bearing No.205/1986-87 of village Kotla
Mahigram, Tehsil Mehruali, Delhi was pronounced in the year 1986-
87 whereby the aforesaid land belonging to the petitioner was also
acquired.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that despite acquisition
proceedings which culminated in the award made in the year 1986-87,
the compensation in respect of the land, which is subject matter of the
present petition, was not paid to the petitioner by the LAC despite
various applications, for making payment.
4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit wherein they
alleged that the petitioner has failed to place any documentary proof
to demonstrate his ownership/claim over the land in question and has
not made the other co-owners as party to the writ petition. However,
the petitioner has placed on record Khatoni of 1990-91 as proof of
his ownership which is not denied.
5. The following paragraph of the counter affidavit dated
15.03.2016 is relevant:-
"6. That the land in question i.e. Khasra No.228/1
(2-16), 229 (4-4), 230/1(2-12), 250(4-16), 251 (4-
16), 252/2 (2-16), 269/1 (2-0), 270 (4-16) ad-
measuring 28 bighas 16 biswas (Petitioner is
claiming 1/12 share)situated at the revenue estate
of village Kotla Maigrain, New Delhi was notified
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on
06.04.1964 followed by declaration under section
6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 07.12.1966 for
Planned Development of Delhi. In pursuance of
said notification, notices under section 9 & 10 as
provided under the Act, were issued to the
interested persons, inviting the claims from all the
interested persons and claims were also filed by
the interested persons. The then Land Acquisition
Collector passed Award No.205/1986-87 dated
19.09.1986 after considering the claims of the
claimants. Further, possession of the above
mentioned land were taken over on 04.12.1986,
12.12.1996 and 05.03.1997 and handed over to the
beneficiary department. That part payment of the
compensation was paid to Sh.Balbir Singh s/o
Sunehari on 28.02.2006 for Rs.28,728/- and
remaining amount was sent in RD as there was
some dispute."
6. As per the counter affidavit, the part compensation has been
paid only to a co-owner Balbir Singh s/o Sunehari on 28.06.2006 to
the tune of `28,728/- and the remaining amount has been sent in RD
as admittedly there was some dispute. The respondent had not
disclosed as to if any notice was sent or served upon the petitioner
herein or any claim was filed by the petitioner or any amount of
compensation has been paid to the petitioner in respect of the
aforesaid acquisition.
7. 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)"
8. 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."
9. Thus, as the appropriate government has not denied the
compensation being not disbursed to the petitioner, and therefore this
Court is of the opinion that though the issue of possession is disputed,
but, 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 qua the share of the petitioner in respect of
aforesaid Khasra numbers has therefore lapsed in view of the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
10. The writ petition and pending miscellaneous applications are
allowed in the above terms.
YOGESH KHANNA, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
APRIL 11, 2017
VLD/RS
