Delhi High Court
Mamta Gupta vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 16 August, 2017
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 16th AUGUST , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 5878/2016 & CM APPL.24184/2016
MAMTA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Vishal Maan, Advocate.
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocate, for
L&B/LAC.
Mr.Shantanu Sagar, 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 matter was originally listed on 14.08.2017. Since
14.08.2017 was declared a court holiday, this matter is listed today.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents seek liberty to place on record
the counter-affidavit. Liberty granted. Counter affidavit is taken on record.
3. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims herself to be
recorded owners of the land of Khasra Nos.1038/2 (2-04) min situated in
Village Chattarpur, New Delhi to the extent of 2 bighas and 4 biswas. The
petitioner's claim is that acquisition of her land (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').
4. The necessary facts are that the suit land along with several others
have been notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old
Act) on 25.11.1980 for the purpose of 'Planned Development of Delhi'. A
declaration was issued under Section 6 on 7.6.1985. The acquisition
proceedings terminated in Award bearing No.15/1987-88 in which the suit
lands too were assessed for compensation. In the circumstances it is
contended that despite assessment of compensation, the amount have not
been paid to the petitioner with the meaning of expression as held by the
Supreme Court in its judgment Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., 2014 (3) SCC 183. It is also
contended that despite that, the other eventuality i.e. taking possession of
suit land has also not occurred.
5. The respondents i.e. DDA and Govt. of NCT of Delhi have filed
their affidavits. Pertinently the appropriate government in its affidavit states
that possession of the suit land was not taken although it refutes allegations
in respect of compensation and states that the amount was 'deposited' in
Revenue Department.
6. The Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case (supra) is
categorical that compensation amount has to be actually paid/tendered to
the landowners. In the present case the statement that it was deposited in
the Revenue Department is ambiguous. Furthermore, the appropriate
government clearly admits that the possession of the suit land was never
taken. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner is
entitled to the declaration sought. Accordingly, it is held that acquisition of
suit lands in Khasra Nos.1038/2 (2-04) min situated in Village Chattarpur,
New Delhi to the extent of 2 bighas and 4 biswas vide award No. 15/1987-
88 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act.
7. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application
also stands disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 16, 2017 / sa
