Delhi High Court
Priyanaka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 August, 2017
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 17TH AUGUST, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 6778/2014 & CM APPL. 16031/14
PRIYANAKA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.N.S.Vasisht, Advocate with Mr.Vishal
Singh, Ms.Jyoti Kataria Bajaj & Mr.M.P.Bhargava,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Dev P.Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Satya
Prakash Singh, Advocate for UOI.
Mr.Sanjay K.Pathak, Advocate with Ms.Koumudi Kiran
Pathak, Mr.Sunil K.Jha & Mr.Kushal Raj Tater,
Advocate for LAC/L&B.
Mr.Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner claim itself to be recorded owner of the land bearing
Khasra Nos.1391, 1392, 1393, 1401, 1402, 1403 & 1404 measuring 32
bighas and 16 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Malikpur
Kohi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli, NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
'suit land') by virtue of seven separate registered Sale Deeds dated
01.12.1994. The petitioner's claim is that acquisition of 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').
2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(old Act) was issued on 27.06.1996; it included the suit land. A declaration
was issued under Section 6 of the old Act on 10.01.1997. The award
bearing No.02/98-99 dated 07.01.1999 was made by the Land Acquisition
Collector.
3. The petitioner avers that pursuant to the award, no compensation has
been paid or tendered by the respondents nor possession of the suit land has
been taken. 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.
4. It is further averred that the petitioner challenged the impugned
notification dated 27.06.1996 issued under Section 4 and 17(1) and (4) of
the Act in W.P.(C) No. 4730/1996 titled 'Priyanka Overseas vs. Union of
India & Ors.'. It is informed that the notification dated 27.06.1996 was
quashed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1953/1997 titled 'Vasant Kunj
Enclave Housing Welfare Society vs. Union of India & Ors.' on 23.03.2007.
This order was challenged before the Supreme Court in 'Govt. of NCT of
Delhi vs. Geeta Batra & Ors.' (Civil Appeal No. 2997/2012), 'Govt. of
NCT of Delhi vs. M/s. Luthra & Co. & Ors.' (Civil Appeal No.3001/2012)
and 'Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Vasant Kunj Enclave Housing Welfare
Society' (Civil Appeal No. 4062/2012). These appeals were dismissed by
the Supreme Court. It is further informed that the respondents have issued
public notice dated 21.11.2012 inviting objection under Section 5-A of the
Old Act; it included the suit land. A corrigendum dated 08.07.2013 was
issued in continuation of the public notice dated 21.11.2012 informing that
the opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of the Old Act was
available only to those land owners who had challenged the acquisition
proceedings.
5. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter-affidavit,
states in Para (13) :
"13. That without prejudice to the aforesaid plea, it is
humbly submitted that as regards status of possession of the
subject land, it is humbly submitted that the same could not
be taken due to interim stay/ status quo order passed by this
Hon'ble Court. So far as payment of compensation is
concerned, the same could not be paid for want of
possession due to interim order and due to which the
compensation amount was not sent by Delhi Development
Authority - the beneficiary of the acquisition to the
answering respondents."
6. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C )No.2299/2002 tilted
Santosh Singh & Ors.vs.UOI & Ors, decided on 13.11.2014, held after
overall consideration of the provisions of Section 19, 24(2) and Section 69
of the Act, that the situation where interim orders were made by the court
too would fall within the ambit of Section 24(2). In Santosh Singh & Ors
(Supra) it was held as follows:
"A close analysis of the above provisions would reveal that
Section 19 enables the acquisition process by the
appropriate Government issuing a declaration, Section 19
(6) is an important exception in that it imposes a limitation
on the power itself (i.e limitation for making declaration). In
case the time limit is not adhered to, the acquisition lapses.
The proviso to Section 19 (6) recognizes that sometime
Court intervention by interim orders impede the appropriate
Government from issuing declarations. Section 69 (2)
enables increased compensation; yet, the explanation
provides that if the landowner secures an interim order, the
period spent in litigation, particularly when the interim
order subsists, cannot be given benefit to him while
calculating interest. Thus, limitation of power freshly
conferred or created by the Act does not follow a uniform
pattern. The object of the provision in question defines how
the allusion to interim orders of court are dealt with.
However, Section 24 (2) is a special provision that but for its
enactment, would have resulted in the operation of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 in that all action taken under the
old law would have been preserved. It therefore had to be
construed in the context of the old enactment which clearly
contemplated exclusion of time at the different stages when
interim orders subsisted (i.e to make declaration after
preliminary notification and also extended period for making
the award). These perspectives are indicative of a contrary
interpretation. However, this Court notices that the ruling of
the Supreme Court on this aspect is decisive; it consequently
binds it."
7. It is evident that compensation for acquisition of the suit land was
not tendered or paid to the recorded owner(s) / petitioner.
8. Petitioner's plea is being considered / restricted only under Section
24(2) of the Act.
9. As the respondents have not denied that the compensation of the suit
land has not been paid and its possession has not been taken, the petitioner
is entitled to the declaration sought. Accordingly, it is held that acquisition
of suit land in Khasra Nos.1391, 1392, 1393, 1401, 1402, 1403 & 1404 to
the extent of petitioner's share i.e. measuring 32 bighas and 16 biswas vide
award No.02/98-99 dated 07.01.1999 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of
Section 24(2) of the Act.
10. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application
(if any) also stands disposed of.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 17, 2017 / tr
