Delhi High Court
Vijender Singh vs Gnctd And Ors. on 10 August, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 01.08.2017
Pronounced on: 10.08.2017
+ W.P.(C) 2783/2015, C.M. APPL.4986/2015
VIJENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 2798/2015, C.M. APPL.5000/2015
BANI SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 2799/2015, C.M. APPL.5001/2015
RAI SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 2803/2015, C.M. APPL.5006/2015
MAHINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 2813/2015, C.M. APPL.5045/2015
DEVENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 2848/2015, C.M. APPL.5115/2015
SATBIR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 2851/2015, C.M. APPL.5119/2015
DHARAMBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 2861/2015, C.M. APPL.5137/2015
KULBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11806/2016, C.M. APPL.46589/2016
ADITYA PRATAP ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11922/2016, C.M. APPL.47029/2016
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Sanjay Parikh, Sh. Aagney Sail and
M. Pathak, Advocates, for petitioners.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Advocate, for L&B/LAC, in Item Nos.2 to
5, 7 to 10.
Sh. Siddharth Panda and Sh. P. Venkatesan,
Advocates, for L&B/LAC, in Item Nos.1 & 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
%
1. All the petitioners in these writ proceedings, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, claim benefit of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, „2013 Act‟). The lands in respect of which
they claim the declaration are located in two villages, Kanjhawala and
Karala. The petitions were heard individually but since common issues arise,
one common judgment has been delivered.
2. The particulars, such as the names of petitioners, the writ petitions‟
descriptions, details of acquired lands (Khasra and other revenue numbers),
as far as it pertains to village Kanjhawala are in a tabular form, as follows:
Sl. Writ Petition Name of Khasra Nos. and extent
No. Petitioner
1. 2783/2015 Vijender Singh Rectangle No. 27 - Khasra No.
19 min (1-14), village
Kanjhawala
2. 2798/2015 Bani Singh Rectangle No. 27 - Khasra No.
19 min(1-14), village
Kanjhawala
3. 2799/2015 Rai Singh Rectangle No. 15 - Khasra
Nos. 11 min (3-06) & 12(3-
06), village Kanjhawala
4. 2803/2015 Mahinder Singh Rectangle No. 4 - Khasra No.
1 min(0-11); Rectangle No. 5 -
Khasras No. 5 min(0-08),
village Kanjhawala
5. 2813/2015 Devender Singh Rectangle No. 4 - Khasra No. 1
min(0-19), village Kanjhawala
6. 2848/2015 Satbir Singh, Bani Rectangle No. 15 - Khasra No.
Singh, Vijender 10(4-12); Rectangle No. 16 -
Singh &Kulbir Khasra Nos. 5 min(0-08) &
Singh 6(4-16), village Kanjhawala
7. 2851/2015 Dharambir Singh Rectangle No. 3 - Khasra No.
21(0-19), village Kanjhawala
8. 2861/2015 Kulbir Singh Rectangle No. 27 - Khasra No.
19 min(0-08), village
Kanjhawala
9. 11806/2016 Aditya Pratap Rectangle No. 5 - Khasra No.
22 min(4-07), village
Kanjhawala
10. 11922/2016 Virender Singh Rectangle No. 12 - Khasra
Nos. 19(4-16), 22(4-16);
Rectangle No. 5 - Khasra Nos.
9 min (2-03), 10(4-16) &
min (2-00), village Kanjhawala
3. The above lands were subject to acquisition, by a Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereafter "the 1894 Act"] dated
25.08.2005; declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on
10.07.2006 and the Award, being No. 06/2008-09 was made on 20.06.2008.
According to the respondents, possession of the suit and other lands, was
taken on 11.07.2008.
4. The lands in Karala, were subject to acquisition, by a Notification
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 25.08.2005; declaration under Section
6 was issued on 10.07.2006 and the Award, being No. 03/2008-09 was made
on 26.05.2008. According to the respondents, possession of the suit and
other such acquired lands, covered by the notification, was taken over on
29.05.2008. A chart, showing the particulars of petitioners, the writ
petitions‟ descriptions, details of acquired lands (Khasra and other revenue
numbers, as far as they pertain to village Karala) in a tabular form, is
represented as follows:
Sl.No. Writ Petition Name of Petitioner Khasra Nos. and extent
1 W.P.(C) Azad @ Anand Rectangle No. 11 - Khasra
5515/15 Singh & Ors. Nos. 18/2(1-16),
22/2min(l-02), 23(4-16),
24/1(0-12); Rectangle No.
12), 22/3(1-06), 23(3-10);
Rectangle No. 35 - Khasra
No. 2/2(2-10), 3/1(1-
12); Rectangle No. 2 -
Khasra No. 16/1(1-05);
Rectangle No. 11 - Khasra
No. 4/2(1-11) &
Rectangle No. 15 - Khasra
No. 13/1(2-05)
2 W.P.(C) Khazan Singh & Ors Rectangle No. 11 - Khasra
7143/15 Nos. 4/1(2-07), 6(4-16),
7/1(3-08), 8/1(1-00), 15(4-
12)
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners received compensation so
determined. They are also entitled to the benefit of a special compensation
package in terms of a scheme framed by the Government, on 01.08.2008.
Many of the petitioners have, in fact, received such special or additional
compensation.
6. The petitioners argue that they continue in possession, and were not
dispossessed in any manner known to law. They consequently seek a
declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. That provision reads as
follows:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894, where an award under the said section
11 has been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the
land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid
the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with
the provisions of this Act..."
7. In a decision of the Supreme Court, which has become the seminal
authority on the issue, i.e. Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki 2014 (3) SCC 183, the Court explained the meaning and
effect of the provision, as follows:
"11. Section 24 (2) also begins with non obstante clause. This
provision has overriding effect over Section 24 (1). Section 24
(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition proceedings
initiated under 1894 Act, where an award has been made five
years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and
either of the two contingencies is satisfied, viz; (i) physical
possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) the
compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings
shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such
acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate government still
chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of
acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the
proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso appended
to Section 24 (2) deals with a situation where in respect of the
acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act an award has been
made and compensation in respect of a majority of land
holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries specified in Section
4 notification become entitled to compensation under 2013
Act."
8. Sh. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of all these
petitioners, argues that the petitioners are entitled to declaration that their
lands are free from acquisition. He argues that the respondents‟ allegations
that possession was taken, of their lands, is incorrect. He argues that in both
sets of cases, the petitioners/landlords owned agricultural lands. Such being
the character of the lands, their owners could not have possibly been
dispossessed without specific notice in this regard. Learned counsel relied on
several judgments of the Supreme Court, in support of his arguments in this
regard.
9. Sh. Parikh relied on the observations in Prahlad Singh v Union of
India (2011) 5 SCC 386, which had approved the observations in Nahar
Singh v State of UP 1996 (1) SCC 434, where it was stated that:
"(iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or
building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the
concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking
possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority
will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure
or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession
in the presence of independent witnesses and get their
signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner
of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference
that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken."
10. Reliance was also placed on Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of
Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792 where the Court stated as follows:
"In the writ petition filed by him, the appellant categorically
averred that physical possession of the acquired land was with
him and he has been cultivating the same. This assertion finds
support from the entries contained in Girdawari/Record of
cultivation, Book No.1, village Jatheri, Tehsil and District
Sonepat (years 2001 to 2010). A reading of these entries shows
that during those years crops of wheat, paddy and chari were
grown by the appellant and at the relevant time, i.e. the date on
which possession of the acquired land is said to have been
taken and delivered to HSIIDC, paddy crop was standing on 5
Kanals 2 Marlas of land. The respondents have not questioned
the genuineness and correctness of the entries contained in the
Girdawaris. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve or
discard the same. That apart, it is neither the pleaded case of
the respondents nor any evidence has been produced before this
Court to show that the appellant had unauthorisedly taken
possession of the acquired land after 28.11.2008. It is also not
the pleaded case of the respondents that the appellant had been
given notice that possession of the acquired land would be
taken on 28.11.2008 and he should remain present at the site."
11. Sh. Parikh, learned also relied on Balwant Narayan Bhagde v M.D.
Bhagwat (1976) 1 SCC 70 where the Court held that:
"There can be no question of taking "symbolical" possession in
the sense understood by judicial decisions under the Code of
Civil Procedure. Nor would possession merely on paper be
enough. What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of
vesting of the land in the Government is the taking of actual
possession of the land. How such possession may be taken
would depend on the nature of the land. Such possession would
have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can
be no hard and fast rule laying down what act would be
sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land. We should
not, therefore, be taken as laying down an absolute and
inviolable rule that merely going on the spot and making a
declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to
constitute taking of possession of land in every case. But here,
in our opinion, since the land was lying fallow and there was no
crop on it at the material time, the act of the Tehsildar in going
on the spot and inspecting the land for the purpose of
determining what part was waste and arable and should,
therefore, be taken possession of and determining its extent,
was sufficient to constitute taking of possession. It appears that
the appellant was not present when this was done by the
Tehsildar, but the presence of the owner or the occupant of the
land is not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession. It is
also not strictly necessary as a matter of legal requirement that
notice should be given to the owner or the occupant of the land
that possession would be taken at a particular time, though it
may be desirable where possible, to give such notice before
possession is taken by the authorities, as that would eliminate
the possibility of any fraudulent or collusive transaction of
taking of mere paper possession, without the occupant or the
owner ever coming to know of it."
12. Similar observations in Sita Ram Bhandar Society v Govt. of NCT of
Delhi (2009) 10 SCC 501 were relied upon:
"(i) No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to what act
would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land.
(ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the State authority
concerned to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will
ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of
possession.
(iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or
building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the
authority concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking
possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority concerned
will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure
or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession
in the presence of independent witnesses and get their
signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner
of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference
that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken.
(iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be
possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical
possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be
sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing
appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses
and getting their signatures on such document."
13. Learned counsel relied on Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India
(2000) 10 SCC 664; Velaxan Kumar v. UOI and Ors 2015 (4) SCC 325 and
M/s. Magnum Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors2015 (3) SCC 327.
14. Sh. Parikh argued that whether the petitioners, or any of them,
accepted full compensation, or even additional benefits, did not matter, so
long as the conditions spelt out in Section 24 (2) were fulfilled. Since the
respondent authorities are unable to establish that possession, in accordance
with law, was ever taken, in respect of agricultural lands, which are the
subject matter of these petitions, in which event alone, would the entitlement
under Section 24 (2) be extinguished. Counsel relied on the award, in the
case of both villages, as well as the possession proceedings, to say that in
neither of them, were the landowners forewarned about the possession
proceedings nor was actual physical possession in fact taken. The
landowners were allowed to cultivate their lands; they continue in possession
and peaceful occupation.
15. Sh. Yeeshu Jain and Sh. Siddharth Panda (for the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), the appropriate Government, and the Delhi State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC) resist these proceedings,
and argue that the petitioners are estopped from contending that they were
not dispossessed from their lands. It is argued, the petitioners applied for
compensation; in those documents, they clearly stated that possession of
their land had been handed over to the authorities. Copies of those
applications are placed on the record. It is also submitted that in addition, the
landowners also executed surety bonds, which too indicated that possession
had been taken. Learned counsel for DSIIDC also points out that the
arguments of the petitioners are baseless, because after possession of the
lands were taken over, they were developed and boundary walls were
constructed. Furthermore, even contract for development of an industrial
area was awarded, along with possession of the acquired lands. Most
importantly, it is argued that the petitioners- or at least most of them, had
claimed Special Rehabilitation Package (SRP) amounts, in accordance with
the Govt. of NCT scheme dated 01.08.2008. It was argued that by the SRP,
farmers covered by the scheme were given substantial additional packages,
for each year when the acquisition was underway, in addition to the
compensation payable under the old Act. The SRP was applicable to farm
lands, and the land-owners had to give up the challenge to the assessed
normal compensation in the award. It is submitted that in respect of
identical lands, which were acquired in village Kanjhawala, this Court had
held, in Jai Kishan v Govt. of NCT of Delhi [W.P.(C) 5395/2015, decided on
21.02.2017], that those who accepted such SRP amounts would not be
entitled to maintain a challenge, under Article 226 of the Constitution, based
on Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
16. As is evident, the controversy in these cases is whether and to what
extent, the petitioners‟ claim that they were not dispossessed from the suit
lands is correct and whether they are entitled to declaration that the
acquisition has lapsed.
17. The award made in respect of the lands in Kanjhawala, inter alia,
reads as follows:
"MARKET VALUE
While determining the market value of the land as on the
date of notification u/s 4 i.e. 25.8.2005, several factors such as
location of the land, nature of soil, awards announced in the
recent past of the same or adjoining villages, pronouncements
of different courts, claims filed by the interested persons, sale
deeds, and price policy of the Government regarding
acquisition of the agricultural land are to be taken into
consideration.
The land under award is basically agricultural in nature
and is exclusively used for agriculture. The interested persons
have generally claimed exorbitant prices ranging from 10,000
per sq. yards to 20,000 per sq. yards but not a single interested
person has led any documentary evidence in support of his
claim. Hence these claims cannot form the basis for the fixation
of market value of the land. Notice u/s 50 of LA Act was issued
to the requisitioning department which in reply has stated that
the amount of compensation be decided on the basis of the
minimum rates suggested by the Govt. of Delhi keeping in view
the status of the land.
The status of land under acquisition is agriculture land as
per entry in Revenue Records and the same is used exclusively
for agriculture and yield crops every year. However, on survey
done by the staff of Land Acquisition branch, it is found that
there is Gaddha up to 1 to 4 feets from road level, in most of the
land although same land is used exclusively for agriculture and
yield crops every year i.e. the land can be stated as "Kashta or
„A‟ category land". There is some chunk (details of which
given below) of land which has not been used for agriculture
since long and is lying barren i.e. the land can be stated as
"Gair Kashta or „B‟ category land". Therefore, there are two
types of land under this award (1) "Kashta or „A‟ category
land" and (2) "Gair Kashta or „B‟ category land". The whole
land can be categorized as "Kashta or „A‟ category land",
except the "Gair Kashta or „B‟ category land", the details of
which are given below:-"
18. According to the respondents (including the appropriate government)
possession was taken over, of the suit lands in Kanjhawala; the proceedings
drawn for that purpose, inter alia, state as follows:
"POSSESSION PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.07.2008
"According to the order of SDM (SV) Shri Sandeep
Kadyat Patwari Mal Gram Kanjhawala is present with the
record. Besides all the above present personnel, the sufficient
police force from the police station Kanjhawala is also present.
The site of the place was inspected alongwith all the present
personnel and the police force. The identification of the spot
was done with the help of Record Mal by the personnel of the
department of Maal. On the spot, the empty Khasra/Kashta
were found and the particulars of which are as under:
Khasra Rakba Khasra Rakba Khasra Rakba
No. No.
No.
1/5 5-10 1/16 4-16 2/9 3-10
6 4-16 17 4-16 10 6-14
7 4-16 18/1-2 4-0 11 4-16
8 2-10 23 4-15 12 4-16
13 3-1 24 4-16 13 5-15
14 4-16 25 4-16
15 4-16
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Total Rakba Number 1312 Bigha 03 Biswa is vacant on
the spot. In this Khasra number, there is some Khareef crops
standing on some Khasra numbers, and the permission of the
harvest stands granted to the concerned person. On some
Khasra numbers, there is tubewell kotha built and its
description has been given in the Award and its possession is on
the basis of "Whatever is where is" (JO HAI JAHAN HAI)."
19. As far as village Karala is concerned, the relevant extracts of the
possession proceeding, is as follows:
"According to the reference of the Order bearing
No.ADM/LAC(N/W) LAC (N/W)/2008/1296-1303 dated
01.07.2008, for taking/ giving the possession of the land of the
village Karala is effected by the above Award, Bahamrah
Sh.Navalsingh Kanoongo (LA), Shri Samit Patwari (LA) and
Shri Dharmanand Patwari (LA) had gone to the appointed
place at the above office of the Deputy Commissioner
(North/West), Kanjhawala. Shri Surender Vashist; Kanoongo
and Shri Deepak Suri Patwari on behalf of L &B and Sh.
Arvindkumar Gupta, AEE And Shri Khajan Singh, JE with
Proper squad, on behalf of DSIIDC, appeared. Shri Jai Singh,
Field Kanoongo and Shri Pradeepkumar Halka Patwari with
Record and alongwith the measuring equipments, on behalf of
the revenue, appeared, and along- with all the above present
had reached the police station Kanjhawala and had taken the
sufficient police force and had reached the place of the land
affected by the above Award and had tallied with the numbers
of the Khasras with the record of the department of the revenue.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx
The possession of the total number (1428-05) bighas
illegible having been sealed has been handed over to Shri
Surender Kumar Vashist, the Kanoongo, the representative of
the L &B Department. Shri Surenderkumar Vashist, the
kanoongo, the representative of L &B had handed over the
possession as it was, to Shri Arvindkumar Gupta, AEE, the
representative of DSIIDC on the spot at the same time. There is
no adverse / postponement order of any court on this
possession in any manner.
The Khasra Numbers illegible 34/: 16 (2-13) 40/22 min
(0-10) 21/2 (1-11), 61/1(5-4) 11 (4-12), 61/12(4-16) 19/1-2 (4-
11) 20/1-2 (4-9) 22/1-2 (4-16), 62/13 (4-16) 16(4-16) 17 (4-16)
23 (4-12) 24 (4-12) 25 (4-12) 22 min (3-6), 63/20 min. (1-6),
64/65 min. (0-4), 67/7 (4-16), the total number (70-18) bighas
which is beside the colonies, on which the boundary walls and
the houses are constructed, and while demolishing the same,
the aggressive local crowd at about 2.00 P.M. on 29.07.2008
had caused the disruption in the work and gheraoed and on
account of the police force being not enough, the work of the
demolition had to be stopped, and consequently, the possession
of the rakba (70-18) bighas could not be taken/ given, and the
possession of the same shall be taken/ handed over only if there
would be the sufficient police force.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Khasra numbers 126 Min (3-15) 1329 (0-16) (0-12) 1331
(0-10) 1412 (013) 1415 (1-4) total number (9-2) bigha which
according to the record is the meant for the way and are
included in the above colonies and their possession has also not
been taken over/ handed over. The rakba number (1428-5)
bigha the possession of which was handed over to the
Department of DSIIDC through the department of L & B where
the agricultural produce is present, is allowed for the way. One
copy of the proceedings of the possession has been sent to the
Halka Patwari in the revenue record for the compliance of the
same. The proceedings of the possession has been completed.
Sd/- Illegible (Vikrant Nain )NaibTehsildar
Sd/-Illegible 29.07.2008 Naval Singh Kanugo (LA -illegible)
Sd/- Illegible Illegible 29/07/08 Sd/- Illegible
Dharmanand Patwari LA illegible 29.07.08
Sd/- Illegible Jai Singh Field Kanogo Sd/- Illegible
Pradeep Kumar Halka Patwari
Sd/- Illegible
Surender Vashist Sd/- Illegible 29.07.08
Sd/- Illegible
Deepak Suri Patwari illegible
Sd/-Illegible Arvind Kumar
AEE DSIIDC 29.07.08 Sd/- Illegible 29.07.08
Illegible JE, DSIIDC"
20. The petitioners have, as may be gathered from the previous factual
discussion, received compensation. They - or at least most of them have
even collected special compensation; as a condition, they even undertook not
to challenge the quantum of compensation by seeking reference. They,
however, say that actual physical possession of the land continues with
them. To the applications (which the respondents point out and rely on)
made by them, which contain unambiguous statements that they had handed
over possession, the petitioners say that such statements of applications were
standard form, stereotypes, which did not reflect the true position and that
they were compelled to sign on them, to obtain compensation. Lastly- and
the kingpin of their argument is- that dispossession of agricultural property
follows a different procedure, which was not adopted in their cases. In the
opinion of this court, each of these contentions has to fail; the reasons are
explained below.
21. First, the applications seeking compensation, (supported by an
affidavit) dated 30.01.2009 (in W.P.(C) 2783/2015), inter alia, state as
follows:
"2. That the land as above has since been acquired and the
payment of compensation is pending before this honorable
court.
3. It is .further stated that there is no dispute exists or pending
regarding the land so acquired in any court of law and
therefore applicant/s is/are fully and completely entitled for the
awarded compensation of the land in question.
4. That possession of the land has already been taken from the
applicant/s by the concerned authorities."
22. Similar applications, and supporting documents were given to the
respondents, in both sets of cases, i.e in respect of landowners of Kanjhawala
as well as Karala. It is relevant to notice that possession proceedings, in
respect of both these villages, had taken place earlier, in July, 2008. The
petitioners, significantly have not mentioned about these documents in their
pleadings, before this court. In the rejoinders, they do not dispute having
filed these documents; their whole argument is based on photographic
evidence that they continue to be in possession. They also rely on the
judgments of the Supreme Court.
23. In Jai Kishan (supra), this Court had observed that no right, title or
interest of the landowners survived in the acquired lands after they accepted
the Special Rehabilitation Package and compensation and gave a clear
undertaking that they shall not pursue their rights in the lands. The said
judgment is, therefore, clear and unambiguous that in the absence of any
right, title or interest in the acquired land on the date of coming into force of
the new Act, such benefit under that enactment cannot be extended to the
petitioners/ land owners. Pre-dating this decision, was an earlier judgment in
Bhim Singh v Govt. of NCT of Delhi [W.P.(C) 9101/2014 and connected
cases, decided on 20.12.2016]. It was inter alia, held that:
"The key point in this batch of matters is whether the
petitioners had any right left in subject lands? As noted above,
in the undertakings given by the petitioners in 2011, while
opting for the Special Rehabilitation Package and receiving
additional payments thereunder, they had clearly divested
themselves of all their rights in respect of the subject acquired
lands. Thus, at the time of commencement of the 2013 Act on
01.01.2014, the petitioners had no right, title or interest left in
the subject lands. Therefore, they cannot claim any benefit
under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. On this ground alone, the
writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
11. Consequently, we dismiss the writ petitions but, with no
order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated."
24. In other petitions too, similar affidavits and applications are relied
upon, by the respondents, as in W.P.(C) 2783/2015 where landowners
applied for compensation clearly stating that they had handed over
possession. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot say that possession
was not taken by the authorities for the reason that those applications were
made in early 2009, long before the enactment of the new, 2013 Act.
25. As far as the reliance placed on several authorities, with respect to
taking over of possession of agricultural lands in concerned, this Court had,
in Union of India v Prasadi & Ors 2003(69) DRJ 751 observed as follows:
" In such a case when the land has been acquired, award made,
compensation given and thereafter physical possession of the
land has been taken, it would not be permissible for the
respondents herein to find fault with the process of taking
possession, that too in collateral proceedings, on the alleged
ground of non-completion of certain formalities. Even if we
assume that there were any irregularities or non-completion of
any formality, no right would vest in favor of the respondents
herein. Non-compliance of any technicality would not render
the factual physical possession as illegal when the respondents
herein had accepted the physical possession of the DDA. In so
far as legal possession is concerned, as per the mandate of
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act once award is passed
the land vests in the State free from all circumstances. In the
present case the award No. 205/86-87 was passed in respect of
the land in question, and therefore, the legal possession in any
case, vests in the State absolutely free from all encumbrances.
This is the legal position as conclusively been held by the
Supreme Court in the cases of: (1) Satinder Prasad and Ors. v.
State of UP, AIR 1993 SC 2517, (2) H M Kelogirao v.
Government of AP, 1997(7) SCC 722, (3) UP Jal Nigam v
Kalra Properties (1997) 3 SCC 124. So much so as even the
symbolic possession is sufficient compliance in the eyes of law.
[Refer: Brahm Sarup & Ors v The State of Haryana & Ors AIR
1975 Punjab 26, and M/s Paramount Food Corporation v Delhi
Development Authority &Ors AIR 1995 Delhi 75."
26. In another judgment, Dr. Rajbir Solanki v Union of India, 148 (2008)
DLT 363, it was held that:
"it is not possible for this Court to agree with the submission of
the learned Counsel that possession is not taken. Suffice it to
say that after symbolic possession is taken, if the petitioner is
enjoying the possession, he is enjoying the possession as a
trustee on behalf of the public at large and that by itself cannot
be considered to be a ground to contend that possession is not
taken. It is the duty of the person who is occupying the property
to look after the property and to see that the property is not
defaced or devalued by himself or by others. He cannot
subsequently come to the Court to say that actual possession is
not taken and therefore he should be protected and land be
denotified."
27. What distinguishes the authorities cited by the petitioners from their
cases, in the opinion of the court, is that in all the petitions, the applications
for compensation were made, after the possession was taken. The
compensation applications clearly and unambiguously stated that possession
was taken, from the landlord applicants. It is possible for the Court to infer
that at the time of taking over possession, at least in some cases, given the
nature of land, which was agricultural, some crops quite possibly existed.
However, the applications for compensation were made later. Moreover, the
possession proceedings do not state that any particular land of any specific
landowner was left out. Since all applications for compensation
unequivocally admitted that possession was taken, the petitioners cannot
now assert to the contrary; they did not deny the correctness of those
statements either in the petitions, or in their rejoinder affidavits.
22. In view of the above conclusions, this Court holds that the petitions
are unmerited; they are accordingly dismissed, without order on costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P. GARG
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 10, 2017
