Delhi High Court
Dayachand & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 August, 2017
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : AUGUST 01, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 8115/2014 & CM APPL.18916/2014
DAYACHAND & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Brajesh Kumar Singh with
Mr.Kumar Qatta and Mr.Amit Pratap
Shaunak, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for UOI.
Ms.Savita Panda counsel for
Ms.Mrinalini Sen Gupta, Advocate, for
DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
LAC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioners have prayed for the benefit of Section 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter '2013 Act') i.e. a
declaration that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of their
W.P.(C)8115/2014 Page 1
various lands at village Phansali, North-West, Delhi be deemed to have
been lapsed since the pre-conditions spelled out in Section 24(2) are
fulfilled.
2. The petitioners aver that they are the owners of the land in village
Phansali, North-West, Delhi. A Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 'old Act') was
issued on 21.3.2003 for Public Purpose, namely, 'Rohini Residential
Scheme' under Planned Development of Delhi'. It included the suit
land. A declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act was issued on
19.03.2004. Thereafter, notices were issued to the interested parties and
on the basis of their submissions as well as relevant material, and
Award No. 14/2005-06/DC (N-W) was published on 17.08.2005.
3. In answer to the petitioner's allegations with respect to neither
compensation having being paid nor the petitioners having being
dispossessed from the suit land, the respondent/Govt of NCT of Delhi
points out in its affidavit that the petitioners allegations are false
because they clearly admit that compensation at the rate of `17,50,000/-
per acre, i.e., 325 per square yard was received, which according to
them was inadequately assessed and paid. The respondent submits that
the possession of the land was also taken on record.
4. The Government of NCT stand is not denied at large by the
petitioner. In the rejoinder, however, it is contended that the form of
structure - i.e. farmhouse was not assessed to compensation and
consequently, the acquisition is not complete. Certain observations in
the award are relied upon for this purpose; the petitioner relies upon a
W.P.(C)8115/2014 Page 2
letter stated to have been issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
some time in 1989 mentioning that the farmhouse was sanctioned.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners claim has failed in
the present case. The petitioners admits that the possession of the entire
land- which according to all the petitioners ought to have been acquired
at a market value of `30,000/-per sq.yard was taken on record. It is not
in dispute that almost the entire compensation was paid to them; the
possession of the lands too were taken on record. In the circumstances,
the factual controversy alleged in the opinion of the Court with respect
to a small portion of the land said to have contained a structure per se
cannot result in the lapsing of the acquisition, particularly in view of the
admissions in the writ petition.
6. The petition fails and is therefore dismissed. All pending
application(s) also stand disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 01, 2017/sa
W.P.(C)8115/2014 Page 3
