Delhi High Court
Ranvir Singh & Ors vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 21 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 04.01.2017
Judgment delivered on: 21.02.2017
+ W.P.(C) 5395/2015 & CM No.9724/2015
JAI KISHAN & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
.
+ W.P.(C) 5399/2015 & CM 9733/2015
RANVIR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5406/2015 & CM 9742/2015
SAMUNDER SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5430/2015 & CM 9783/2015
ANAND KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5431/2015 & CM 9784/2015
HARI SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
W.P.(C) 5395/2015 & Ors. Page 1 of 14
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5432/2015 & CM 9785/2015
JAI PRAKASH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5433/2015 & CM 9786/2015
KRISHAN SINGH ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5436/2015 & CM 97872015
RAJENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5437/2015 & CM 9788/2015
RAM CHANDER & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5448/2015 & CM 9803/2015
PREM SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
W.P.(C) 5395/2015 & Ors. Page 2 of 14
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5449/2015 & CM 9804/2015
RAMPHAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5452/2015 & CM 9808/2015
RAM KANWAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5460/2015 & CM 9830/2015
DHANPATI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 5473/2015 & CM 9843/2015
CHARAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7138/2015 & CM 13100/2015
RANBIR SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
W.P.(C) 5395/2015 & Ors. Page 3 of 14
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7142/2015 & CM 13106/2015
DHARAMVIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7149/2015 & CM 13114/2015
SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7153/2015 & CM 13118/2015
SURAJ SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7154/2015 & CM 13119/2015
RAJ KARAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7155/2015 & CM 13120/2015
KARTAR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 5395/2015 & Ors. Page 4 of 14
+ W.P.(C) 7179/2015 & CM 13200/2015
JAI KISHAN AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7181/2015 & CM 13203/2015
HAR PRATAP SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7183/2015 & CM 13204/2015
OM PRAKASH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7185/2015 & CM 13206/2015
KHEM RAJ & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7187/2015 & CM 13208/2015
DAYANAND & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7189/2015 & CM 13210/2015
W.P.(C) 5395/2015 & Ors. Page 5 of 14
NARAYAN SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7190/2015 & CM 13211/2015
ROHTASH SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7194/2015 & CM 13216/2015
KARTAR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 7196/2015 & CM 13218/2015
DARSHANA & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioners: Mr Sanjay Parikh with Mr Aagney Sail &
Ms Nimi Susan Thomas.
For the Respondent L&B/LAC: Mr Yeeshu Jain, Standing counsel with Ms
Jyoti Tyagi.
For the Respondent L&B/LAC: Mr Siddharth Panda.
For the Respondent DSIIDC: Ms Renuka Arora with Ms Anusuya Salwan
& Mr Kunal Kohli.
W.P.(C) 5395/2015 & Ors. Page 6 of 14
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the
benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as „the 2013 Act‟), i.e., a declaration to the
effect that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands be
deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act. The aforesaid prayers have been made in the background of
the fact that the petitioners have received compensation but they
remained in continuous physical possession of the land in question even
though the award was made more than 5 (five) years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act (i.e. on 01.01.2014). All the writ
petitions are based on almost identical facts except the description of
lands and some dates. The facts of the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No.5395/2015 Jai Kishan & Anr. is taken as the reference case.
2. Hence, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
3. The land acquisition proceedings in the aforesaid batch of cases
commenced under the old Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The
notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 25.08.2005 for
the acquisition of land for public purpose viz. "for development of New
Industrial Area" admeasuring 1343 bighas and 03 biswas of land in
village Kanjhawala; 1774 bighas and 09 biswas of land in village
Sultanpur Dabas; 1905 bighas and 05 biswas of land in village Karala;
and 30 bighas and 09 biswas of land in village Pooth Khurd. Thereafter
declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was made on 10.07.2006 and
ultimately award no.3/2008-09 dated 26.05.2008 was passed for the lands
in village Karala which included the land of the petitioners in W.P.(C)
5395/2015 (Jai Kishan and Anr.). Separate awards were passed for
lands acquired in other villages.
4. The award clearly indicated that the physical possession of the land
under acquisition would be taken after the announcement of the award.
5. The respondents have contended that the physical possession of the
subject lands was taken on 29.07.2008 and the compensation to the
petitioners was also paid. In some of the cases, the subject land was
taken on different dates. The aforesaid facts have been disputed by the
petitioners and they asserted that the physical possession was still with
them and that only paper possession was taken.
6. The petitioners in this batch of cases had challenged the
compensation which was determined by the Collector by moving
reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. During the pendency of such
reference petitions, Government floated a Special Rehabilitation Package
(SRP) wherein taking into consideration the general increase in the prices
of the land and the inequity of giving compensation based on the
procedure followed under the 1894 Act, it was decided that with respect
to the land for which the awards were not announced till December, 2007,
a special benefit would be given to the people affected.
7. The Special Rehabilitation Package read as under:
""GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
B-BLOCK: VIKAS BHAWAN: NEW DELHI.
No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/Vol.II/8226-44
Dated: 01-10-2008
ORDER
The government of the NCT of Delhi have taken into
consideration the general increase in prices of land and the
inequity of giving compensation based on the procedure
followed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore,
the government have decided to give a Special Rehabilitation
Package for the people affected by land acquisition in respect
of the cases in which the land acquisition awards have not
been announced till December 18, 2007, details of which
are:-
1. The amount of compensation effective from December
18, 2007 would be discounted by Rupees 11.80 lakhs per
acre per year for those lands which were notified under
section 4 for acquisition in 2006 and 2005.
2. Though this Special Rehabilitation Package would
involved additional funds for making payment of
compensation to the farmers, the amount would be
recovered while determining the cost of land allotted to
other government agencies.
3. The other elements of the award namely solatium and
interest would be allowed as per rules.
4. The Special Rehabilitation Package would not be treated
as precedent for the future.
5. The payment of compensation should be done in a time
bound manner.
6. The package would apply to all agricultural lands.
7. The Special Rehabilitation Package should be accepted by
individual farmers and made applicable in each case only,
if they do not mount a challenge to the award already
announced by the LAC. If they have challenged the
award they must withdraw the petition to avail of the
benefit of the Special Rehabilitation Package.
Sd/-
( G.S. MEENA )
Addl. Secretary (L&B)"
8. The petitioners accepted such package (SRP) and gave an
undertaking, in accordance with the terms of the package, of their having
accepted the compensation including SRP, leading to cessation of all
their rights qua the acquired land. In the undertaking given by the
petitioners, it was categorically stated that no cause of action would arise
for agitating the matter in any courts of law or authority or authorities and
that it was towards full and final settlement in respect of the acquired
land.
9. Be it noted that these undertakings of the petitioners were made
prior to the commencement of 2013 Act i.e. on 01.01.2014.
10. A bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 9101/2014: Bhim Singh & Ors.
vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and other batch cases held,
without going into the question and distinction of the physical possession
or the paper possession that the land owners, after having accepted the
SRP and having given their undertaking in that regard, had actually
surrendered their rights in the subject lands.
11. Since it was held in the aforesaid cases that the land owners, by
accepting the SRP and giving an undertaking referred to above, had
divested themselves of all their rights with respect of the subject acquired
land prior to the commencement of 2013 Act, they could not have
claimed any benefit under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
12. The facts of these batch of cases are virtually identical and are
covered by the aforesaid judgment delivered on 20.12.2016 in Bhim
Singh & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners however
contended that an undertaking given by the petitioners as ordained in the
Special Rehabilitation Package could not have snatched away the
statutory rights of the petitioners under the New Act and that the
undertaking merely was with respect to their rights for continuing with
the proceedings under Section 18 i.e. for enhancement of compensation,
under the 1894 Act. The aforesaid submission was based on the premise
that without taking the actual possession of the land acquired by the
Government, the land remained with the land owners and therefore they
would definitely be entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the New
Act of 2013 which provides succour to such land owners with respect to
whose lands, even after passing of the award, awarded compensation is
not paid or possession is not taken. Thus, it was argued that despite the
undertaking given by the petitioners as contemplated in the SRP, the
rights under Section 24(2) of the New Act could not be denied to them. It
was contended that the acquisition proceedings would not be deemed to
have been completed till possession is taken. Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 provides that collector may take possession of land,
which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the government, free of all
encumbrances. It was further argued that the power of acquisition and
possession of property falls within the power of eminent domain, and
therefore strict compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and Article 300-A of the Constitution is a must. Vesting of
land under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 pre-supposes
actual physical possession and the onus of taking possession is on the
acquiring authority. Since the land acquisition proceedings are
expropriatory in nature, the provisions of the Act has to be construed
strictly. The new rights under the new Act of 2013, therefore, cannot be
denied, notwithstanding the acceptance of SRP and the undertaking of
giving up of rights qua the acquired land.
14. There is no gainsaying that the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 have to be strictly complied with but we are afraid, we cannot
accede to the submissions of the petitioners as it has been clearly laid
down in W.P.(C) 9101/2014 (Bhim Singh Vs. Government of NCT of
Delhi & Anr.) that no right, title or interest of the petitioners is left in the
subject lands after the land owners accepted the Special Rehabilitation
Package and compensation and gave a clear undertaking that they shall
not pursue their rights in the subject lands. The aforesaid judgment is
absolutely clear and unambiguous that in the absence of any right, title or
interest in the subject land on the date of coming into force of the New
Act, such benefit thereunder cannot be extended to the petitioners/ land
owners.
15. The case of the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment
delivered in Bhim Singh & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
16. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioners cannot claim any benefit
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
17. These writ petitions are dismissed accordingly but without any
costs and all the pending applications stand disposed of.
18. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2017/ab
