Delhi High Court
Ravi Nanda & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 11 April, 2017
$~86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 11th April, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 4589/2016 & CM No.19101/2016
RAVI NANDA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Sachin Sood & Mr.Chandan
Singh, Advocates.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
for L&B/LAC with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate.
Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (Oral)
1. Smt.Kaushalya Devi, the mother of the first five petitioners,
grandmother of the seventh petitioner, and mother-in-law of the sixth
petitioner was the owner of agricultural land admeasuring 4 bighas
and 16 biswas falling in Khasra No.819, situated in village
Chatterpur, Tehsil Mehruali, New Delhi.
2. The land was purchased by Kaushalya Devi by sale deed dated
30.07.1980. However, she expired on 08.01.2000 and her husband
also died on 15.08.2001. Thus, the petitioners, being her legal heirs,
became the lawful and exclusive owners and in possession of the
aforesaid agricultural land.
3. On 25.11.1980 a notification bearing No.F-9(16)-L&B under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the
respondent No.4 notifying the land situated in Village Chatterpur,
Tehsil Mehruali, New Delhi. Further, on 07.06.1986 a notification
bearing No.F-9(26)/85-L&B under Section 6 of the Act was issued
declaring the subject land is needed for the public purposes namely
the 'Planned Development of Delhi'.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector had passed an award bearing
No.15/87-88 of village Chatterpur, New Delhi. It is alleged that the
petitioners never received any compensation in respect of their land
falling in Khasra No.819 and till date they continue to be in
uninterrupted and legal possession of land in question and rather are
running a charitable hospital by the name and style of 'Nanda
Medical Centre'. The photographs of the hospital as also the relevant
Khasra Girdawari has been filed.
5. An application dated 01.03.2006 was moved by the petitioners
under the Right to Information Act and they received a reply dated
28.04.2016 of stating inter alia that no compensation was disbursed to
Smt.Kaushalya Devi or to the petitioners ever.
6. The third respondent - Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
has not disputed the above facts, but has alleged that an amount of
`100 Crores was remitted by the Central Government to the Land and
Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi on account of
compensation of 13 South Delhi villages including Village
Chattarpur, New Delhi.
7. The fourth respondent, Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) -
Mehrauli has filed the counter affidavit dated 31.01.2017, the relevant
portion whereof reads as under:-
"6. That it is submitted that the lands of village
Chatterpur were notified vide Notification under
section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated
25.11.1980 which was followed by the Notification
under section 6 of the Act. The Award was also
passed vide Award No.15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987
however possession of the land falling in khasra
number 819(4-16 could not be taken nor the
compensation could be paid. The compensation
was lying deposited in RD in the name of
Koshyalaya Devi but the amount in RD withdrawn
vide RV No.1372 dated 07.05.1993 for
Rs.194793740.80 for Award No.1/93-94."
8. The respondents therefore have not denied the averments of the
petitioners that 'Nanda Medical Centre' is being run on the land in
question and that no compensation was ever disbursed either to
Kaushalaya Devi or to the petitioners herein.
9. Thus in the circumstances the Court is of 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)"
10. 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."
11. In the present case, since the appropriate government has not
denied that the compensation was not disbursed to the petitioners (as
it was never tendered or given to them) nor its possession was taken
over by it, therefore, following decision in Pune Municipality (supra)
the relief claimed needs to be granted. A declaration is issued that the
acquisition of the agricultural land admeasuring 4 bighas and 16
biswas falling in Khasra No.819, situated in village Chatterpur, Tehsil
Mehruali, New Delhi, has lapsed in view of the provisions Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. A
consequential direction quashing the notification, award (in so far as
it relates to the subject land) is issued.
12. Writ petition and pending applications are allowed in these
terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
YOGESH KHANNA, J
APRIL 11, 2017
M/RS
