Delhi High Court
Paramjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 December, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 4th December, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 6550/2017
PARAMJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. and
Mr. Chirag Sharma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for
L&B/LAC
Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta and
Ms. Sarita Panda, Advs. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The counter-affidavit has been handed over in Court, copy
has been supplied. The same is taken on record. With the consent
of the parties the writ petition is set down for final hearing and
disposal.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner
of the land admeasuring 1824 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra Nos. 732 &
733, Village Tuglakabad, Delhi corresponding to property bearing
No. 101, M.B. Road, New Delhi.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land acquisition
proceedings with respect to the aforesaid land stands lapsed, as
neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid.
Counsel for the petitioner also relies on para 5 of the Counter-
affidavit in support of his submission.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the LAC submits that the
physical possession could not be taken nor compensation has been
paid. The same has been sent to RD.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. In this case a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued on 10th November, 1960, the Section 6
notification was issued on 4th January, 1969 and thereafter an
Award No.66/86-87 dated 29th August, 1986 was passed. The
petitioner has claimed in this writ petition that he is the owner of the
subject land based on a will executed by his late father Shri Darshan
Singh in the year 2011. He also placed reliance on a sale deed
which has been placed on record dated 28 th November, 1959 which
was duly registered on 18th April, 1968. He relied on translated
copy to show that the subject area has fallen, was purchased by his
late father and then he executed to him.
7. Para 5 of the counter-affidavit reads as under:
"5. That it is submitted that the lands of village
Tughlakabad were notified vide Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 dated
10.11.1960 which was followed by Notification under
section 6 of the said Act vide notification dated
4.1.1969. That the records observed that the physical
possession of the subject land could not be taken due to
stay from dispossession and compensation was sent to
RD on 19.3.1987 due to dispute."
8. Having regard to the submissions made and more
particularly para 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the LAC. We
are satisfied that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors.,
reported at 2014 3 SCC 183, the Supreme Court of India in paras
14 and 20 held as under:
"14. Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the
Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to tender
payment of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto
according to award. It further mandates the Collector to make
payment of compensation to them unless prevented by one of
the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2). The
contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2) are: (i) the
persons interested entitled to compensation do not consent to
receive it (ii) there is no person competent to alienate the land
and (iii) there is dispute as to the title to receive compensation
or as to the apportionment of it. If due to any of the
contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2), the Collector is
prevented from making payment of compensation to the
persons interested who are entitled to compensation, then the
Collector is required to deposit the compensation in the court
to which reference under Section 18 may be made.
20. From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining
to the subject land has been made by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that
compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the
landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court. The
deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is
of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to
compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. We
have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject land
acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act."
9. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed, the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the subject land stands lapsed.
10. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
DECEMBER 04, 2017/aky
