Delhi High Court
Satbir Singh & Ors vs The Honorable Lt. Governorand Ors on 16 August, 2017
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : AUGUST 16, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 5076/2014 & CM APPL.17160/2014
SATBIR SINGH & ORS
..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Dhruv Sharma, Advocate.
versus
THE HONORABLE LT. GOVERNORAND ORS
..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr.Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel
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 matter was originally listed on 14.08.2017. Since 14.08.2017
was declared a court holiday, this matter is listed today.
2. The petitioners claim themselves to be recorded
owners/Bhoomidars of the land in Khasra Nos.1292 measuring 1 bigha
and 7 biswa to the extent of 1/2 share and 2002/1288 measuring 1
bigha and 18 biswas to the extent of 1/4 th share situated in the revenue
estate of Village Kishangarh Mehrauli, Delhi. The petitioners' claim is
that acquisition of their lands (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') has
lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 23.01.1965; it
included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on
17.12.1966. After considering the evidence and submissions, the award
bearing No.80E/70-71 (supp.) dated 9.1.1981 was made by the Land
Acquisition Collector.
4. The petitioners aver that pursuant to the award, complete
compensation in respect of their share of the suit land thereof was
neither paid or tendered though possession was taken on 23.9.1981.
Relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors., 2014 (3) SCC 183, counsel urged that the
acquisition has lapsed since five year period indicated in Section 24(2)
of the Act has ended.
5. The respondents specially the Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
LAC, in its counter-affidavit states in Para 6 and 7 :
" That as per record, the land in question i.e.Khasra
no.1292 (1-07) having 1/2 share and 2002/1288 (1-18)
having 1/4th share situated at the revenue estate of village
Kishangarh Mehrauli, New Delhi, was notified under
Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act on 23.01.1965 followed
by declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act on
07.12.1966 for Planned Development of Delhi. In
pursuance of said notification, notices under Sections 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 including the predecessor(s) in interest
of the present petitioners with respect to the above said
land in question. The then Land Acquisition Collector
passed Award no.80E/70-71 dated 09.01.1981 after
considering the claims of the claimants.
That in the present case, the possession of the above
mentioned land was taken over and handed over to the
beneficiary department on 23.09.1981. The 2/3 rd share of
compensation with respect to Khasra No.2002/1288 (1-
18) has been paid but the compensation with respect to
Khasra no.1292(1-7) has not been paid."
6. From the above, it appears that the compensation in respect of
half share of suit land of the petitioners in Khasra no.1292 (1-07)
situated in the Village Kishangarh Mehrauli, Delhi has not been paid.
They are, therefore entitled to a declaration, as claimed, under Section
24(2) of the Act. However, as far as 1/4th share in Khasra No.2002/1288
measuring 1 bigha and 18 biswas situated in the Village Kishangarh
Mehrauli, Delhi is concerned, the materials placed on record as well as
the tabular chart produced by the respondents in support of their
contentions indicate that majority of the land owners to the extent of
2/3rd share holders were paid the compensation. The particulars of the
amounts paid to the other co-sharers is as follows:
Name Father's Share Amount Remarks
Name
Udal Devi Singh 1/12 91.4 Disputed RD
Prithi Devi Singh 1/12 91.04 Paid vide RV dated
31.7.82
Chhatar Devi Singh 1/12 91.04 Paid vide RV dated
31.07.82
Bhani Indar 1/4 273.12 Disputed RD
Ramdhan Harphool 1/8 136.56 Paid
Amrit Harphool 1/8 136.56 Paid vide RV dated
29.09.82
Risal Rammehar 1/24 45.52 Disputed RD
Jai Singh Rammehar 1/24 45.52 Paid vide RV dated
29.09.82
Maan Singh Rammehar 1/24 45.52 Paid vide RV dated
29.09.82
Ram Bhajan Durga 1/8 136.56 Paid vide RV dated
29.09.82
7. In view of the above and having regard to the interpretation of
Section 24 (2) by this Court in Ram Prakash Kathuria vs Union of India
& Ors [WP(C) No.4465/2016] Suraj Singh & Anr. vs. the Honorable Lt.
Governor Raj Bhawan, Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(C) 6395/2014], decided on
2.5.2017, it is held that the petitioners are only entitled to the balance
compensation along with other attendant benefits in respect of 1/4 th
share in their suit land.
8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly
allowed to the extent it relates to the petitioners' 1/2 (half) share in
Khasra No. 1292 measuring 1 bigha and 7 biswa situated at the revenue
estate of village Kishangarh Mehrauli, New Delhi vide award bearing
No. 80E/70-71 (supp.) dated 9.1.1981. Accordingly, it is held that
acquisition of said suit land to the extent of petitioner's half share in
Khasra No.1292 (1-07) village Kishangarh Mehrauli, Delhi is deemed
to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act.
9. In respect of Khasra No. 2002/1288 measuring 1 bigha and 18
biswas to the extent of 1/4th share situated in the Village Kishangarh
Mehrauli, Delhi, petitioners are at liberty to claim the balance amount
of determined compensation and are not entitled to the declaration
under Section 24(2) of the Act.
10. The writ petition and all pending application(s) stand disposed of
in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 16, 2017/sa
