Delhi High Court
Yashwant Singh vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 15 December, 2017
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15th December, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 6506/2017
YASHWANT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Maan, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Siddharth Panda, Adv. for R-1 and
R-2.
Mr.Arjun Pant, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) submits that it
is not necessary to file the counter affidavit.
2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final
hearing and disposal.
3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed
by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order
dated 17.03.2017 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) has been
dismissed.
4. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are
that a Section 4 notification of the Act was issued on 04.11.2004.
Thereafter an Award bearing no.1/2007-08 was passed on 06.08.2007.
It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge
(ADJ) decided a reference being LAC No.101/11 on 15.12.2002 and
re-determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of
Rs.17,45,000/- per acre for category/Block-A and for category/Block-
B at rate of Rs.17,01,375/- per acre. On 22.12.2010, the petitioner
filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, which was
rejected by an order dated 03.03.2011 by the then Land Acquisition
Collector (SW) as being time barred. Although the reference was
forwarded to the ADJ but the same was dismissed by the court of ADJ
on 29.10.2011 on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.
This led to filing of a petition under Section 28A of the Act before the
LAC which also stands dismissed by the impugned order dated
17.03.2017.
5. Mr.Maan submits that LAC, despite the decision of the Constitution
Bench in the case of Union of India and another vs. Hansoli Devi
and others, reported at AIR 2002 SC 3240, has rejected the
application on the basis of a reference order dated 17.04.2001, but did
not rely upon the final order and observed that the order in question
has been referred to a larger bench. Mr.Maan contends that as per the
decision rendered in the case of Hansoli Devi (supra), it has been held
has under:
"6. Coming to the second question for reference the
receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant
to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no
consequence for the purpose of making a fresh
application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed
an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a
reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has
received the compensation awarded by the Collectors
with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved
within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be
entitled to make an application when some other land
owner's application for reference is answered by the
reference Court. It is apparent on the plain language of
the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. Otherwise, it
would amount to adding one more condition, not
contemplated or stipulated by the Legislature itself to
deny the benefit of substantial right conferred upon the
owner."
6. Mr.Panda, counsel for the LAC submits that in the decision of the five
judges‟ Bench in the case of Hansoli Devi (supra) was not brought to
the notice to the LAC, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside
and the matter may be remanded back to the Land Acquisition
Collector for fresh hearing.
7. Having regard to the submissions made and the stand taken by the
counsel for the LAC, the impugned order of 17.03.2017 is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the LAC to enable him to hear and
decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties.
8. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case. Leave is granted to the parties to raise all the grounds.
Mr.Maan submits that by a subsequent order dated 11.12.2014, the
Supreme Court has further enhanced the compensation. It will be
open for the parties to bring to the notice of LAC the aforesaid order,
who shall consider the same in accordance with law.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
DECEMBER 15, 2017
rb
