Delhi High Court
Nidhi Singhal vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 16 August, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 16th AUGUST , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2733/2015 & CM APPL.4902/2015
NIDHI SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Rajesh Yadav with Mr.Sunil
K.Goel, Mr.Lalit Rawal and
Mr.Siddharth Gupta, Advocates.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel for DDA with Ms.Ridhi
Suman, Advocate.
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. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims herself to be
recorded owners of the land of Khasra No.37/6 measuring 10 biswas
(0-10) situated in Village Pehladpur Bangar. 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').
3. The necessary facts are that the suit land along with several
others has been acquired for the purpose of 'Planned Development of
Delhi'. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (old Act) was issued on 21.03.2003; this was followed by a
declaration under Section 6 on 19.03.2004. The acquisition
proceedings culminated in Award bearing No.06/2005-6/DC dated
12.07.2005 which assessed the acquired lands to compensation.
4. The petitioner claims for the relief in this case on account of her
contention that she acquired the title/ownership rights in respect of the
suit land, sometimes in 2010. The petitioner relies upon General
Power of Attorney dated 11.03.2010; this instrument recites inter-alia
that one Shyam Ji, constituted the petitioner as Power of Attorney. In
turn it is stated that one Surender Kumar Sharma s/o Hukam Chand
had nominated Shyam Ji as his attorney in respect of the suit land.
This was preceded by another Power of Attorney and alike document
evidencing that Bharat Bhushan had the Power of Attorney likewise.
The petitioner also relies upon a Will made by Surender Kumar
Sharma to have been the original recorded owner. It is contended on
strength of this document that the petitioner is lawful owner and
therefore is entitled to maintain the present proceedings having regard
to the fact that neither was compensation deposited in respect of the
suit land nor was the petitioner dispossessed pursuant to the award.
5. The Court notices at the outset that all the documents relied
upon by the petitioner were unregistered and purported to be title
document conferring some manner of interest. Per se they cannot
convey any title or interest. Furthermore, the petitioner claims to be a
subsequent owner through alike documents executed after the passing
of the Award. None of the documents - at least executed subsequent
to the Award disclosed that the lands were subject to acquisition or
that the petitioner or other predecessor(s) were entitled to
compensation. One of the essential principle requisite for claiming
that Section 24(2) applies is the right to receive compensation. In the
present case, the Court is unable to grant relief sought.
6. In similar circumstances, this Court has occasion to decline
relief where the predecessor premised arguments on unregistered
document. In Sunil vs.Union of India & Ors. [(W.P.(C) 8907/2015]
decided on 17.07.2015 stated as follows.
"The petitioner's father allegedly purchased the suit land in
question from one Harkesh in 1992 on the basis of GPA,
Agreement to Sell, Will etc. The petitioner or his father never
got the property mutated in their names. Nothing is on record
to infer if any intimation was ever given by the petitioner or his
father to the concerned authorities regarding purchase of the
property in question. These documents i.e.GPA, Agreement to
Sell, etc. even are not registered. The petitioner has not placed
on record any cogent or credible document to show if Harkesh
from whom the property in question was purchased was the
recorded owner of the suit land."
7. For the above reasons, no relief can be granted. The writ
petition is dismissed. All pending application(s) also stand disposed
of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 16, 2017 / sa
