Delhi High Court
Deepak Kumar & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 9 August, 2017
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : AUGUST 09, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 6869/2014 & CM APPL. 16223/2014
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. L S Solanki, Advocate
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing
Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate for L&B
Mr. Dhanesh Relan with Ms.
Isha Garg, Advocate for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioners seek a declaration for the lands falling in Khasra
Nos. 389 min and Khasra No. 393 situated in the Village Abadi of
Village Gharonda Neem Ka Bangar, to be free from acquisition by
virtue of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. The appropriate government by a notification dated 13.11.1959
under Section 4 of the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 sought to
acquire the land; including the suit lands. This was followed by the
declaration under Section 6 and eventually award bearing No. 6C/71-
72 (Suppl.) was made. The petitioners claim ownership and possession
of Khasra Nos. 389 and 393 and submit that neither was compensation
for acquisition paid nor was physical possession taken.
3. The petitioners inter alia rely upon a reply to an RTI query and
submit that they are entitled to the declaration sought in respect of the
two khasra nos.389 and 393.
4. The petitioners have also placed reliance on documents such as
electricity bills, water bills and house tax receipts to substantiate their
contentions that they are the owner of the said khasra nos. 389 and 393
of the said land.
5. In the counter affidavit of the appropriate Government in para 7,
material facts are as follows:-
"7. That the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the petitioners have nowhere disclosed
about the extent of land in their individual possession
rather the petitioners have given misguiding and
misleading facts by stating land holding as 650 sq.
Yards. It is submitted that the petitioners have sought
relief by stating the khasra number as 389 min but in
the absence of the proper measurement, it could not
be ascertained as to petitioners would form part of
which min as the said khasra number 389 have more
than five min and resultantly also the status of
compensation. It is submitted that equally the another
khasra number 389 also have more than one min
whereas the petitioners have sought relief for the
entire khasra i.e. 393.
7A. That the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as it contained various disputed facts
regarding the ownership of the petitioners and the
documents thereto, thus the same cannot be decided in
the writ proceedings."
6. The DDA has filed an affidavit which is inter alia to the
following effect:-
"Contents of paras 1 are wrong and denied. Petition
is devoid of any merits, basis, justification or cause of
action and is an abuse and misuse of process of law.
The land in question and an area measuring 537 sq.
Yds, is encroached as multi storey commercial
building known as Plot No. 82 Kiran Jyoti Building,
Partap Nagar, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-91. The
land in question falls in Khasra No. 389 Min and 393
Min of Village Gharonda Neem Ka Bangar. As per
record of DDA Register land record. Land bearing
Khasra No. 389 measuring 10 Bighas 7 Biswas and
393 measuring 2 Bighas 11 Biswas of Village
Gharonda Neem Ka Bangar has been acquired vide
Award No. 6-C/1971-72 Suppl. And 6-A/71-72 dated
13.5.77/15.4.72 and the same has been placed at the
disposal of the answering Respondent, vide
Notification under Section 22(i) of the Act, No.
F8(31)78/L&B dated 24.7.78 of D.D. Act and F8 (49)
L&H dated 2.5.72."
7. It is evident from the above pleadings that the petitioners' claim
is for a declaration in respect of two specific khasra Nos. 389 min and
393 min, Village Gharonda Neem Ka Bangar. All the materials
placed on record to substantiate their claim to ownership and
entitlement pertain to khasra Nos. 389 and 393. All that the
petitioners have to back their claim for the declaration are collateral
documents evidencing occupation such as water bills, electricity bills,
house tax receipts etc. and special Power of Attorney, agreement to
sell etc. However, the petitioners' occupation, or that they are as
'persons interested' in the sense understood in law, in the opinion of
the Court, has not been established. The petitioners' ownership has
not been established with respect to any of the lands that they seek a
declaration for. It is not clear as to whether the title to the original
lands was made out to the petitioners and if so, under what
circumstances, is he entitled to claim compensation as 'person
interested.'
8. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that
petitioners are not entitled to the relief they seek and the petition is
therefore dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 09, 2017 / P
