Delhi High Court
Ram Kishan & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 11 July, 2017
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 11th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 4607/2015 & CM APPL. 8337/2015
RAM KISHAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Anuroop P.S., Advocate with
Mr.Sultan Choudhary, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Ruhi Chopra, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim their
predecessor-in-interest to be recorded owner of the agricultural land of
Khasra No.419/305 ad measuring 8 bighas and 11 biswas in the
Revenue Estate of Village Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi. The
petitioners' claim is that acquisition of their lands (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').
2. The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 17.11.1980; it
included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on
29.09.1981. The award bearing No.39/82-83 dated 13.09.1982 was
made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
3. The petitioners aver that their predecessor-in-interest late
Sh.Rumal was the recorded bhoomidar of the suit land. After his
death, it came into possession of late Sh.Sheo Raj. On his demise, it
came in the shares of the petitioners in equal proportions and they are
in possession thereof since then. Pursuant to the award, possession of
the suit land was taken over by the respondents, however,
compensation in respect thereof was never paid or tendered. 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. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter-
affidavit, significantly makes the following admission :
"The facts are however quite different as the physical
possession of the subject land was duly taken on
1.10.1982 on the spot and handed over to the DDA by
preparing possession proceeding on the spot. The part
compensation has also been paid to some of the share
holders in the said land measuring (8-11) however it is
submitted that the compensation to the share of Sh.Rumal
has not been paid."
5. It is further stated that payment of majority of compensation to
the recorded owners has been made and the case falls under proviso to
Section 24(2) of the Act.
6. It is evident that the possession of land in Khasra No.419/305
has been taken so far. The counter-affidavit does not reveal if any
compensation for acquisition of the land in Khasra No.419/305 was
paid to the recorded owner.
7. The Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case (supra)
dealt with the issue, i.e. as to whether compensation amount has to be
actually paid, or deposited. That decision clarified that mere deposit
of the amount in the Treasury would not fulfill requirement of Section
24(2) and that there should be a positive step to appropriate the
concerned amount and make it available to the land owner, i.e. by way
of payment under Section 31(2) of the old Act, or by deposit of the
compensation in Court.
8. During the course of arguments, the petitioners confined their
relief to the extent of their 1/12th share in the suit lands. Accordingly,
it is held that acquisition of suit land in Khasra No.419/305 vide award
No.39/82-83 dated 13.09.1982 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of
Section 24(2) of the Act to the extent of 1/12th share of the petitioners.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 11, 2017 / tr
