Delhi High Court
Dharamvir vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 11 July, 2017
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 11th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 587/2017
DHARAMVIR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Lalit K.Rawal, Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
L& B / LAC with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. Learned counsel for the respondents seek liberty to place on record
the counter-affidavit. Liberty granted. Counter affidavit is taken on record.
2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims himself to be
recorded owner of the agricultural land to the extent of 1/36th share i.e. 0-18
biswas of Khasra No.481(3-0), 488(3-9), 506(3-0), 516(2-1), 517(0-16),
535(8-2), 536(7-13) & 537(3-8) total measuring 31 bighas and 0-9 biswas
in the Revenue Estate of Village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Delhi. The
petitioner's claim is that acquisition of his 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').
3. The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 24.10.1961; it included
the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on 02.09.1966. The
award bearing No.9/1973-74 dated 05.06.1973 was made by the Land
Acquisition Collector.
4. The petitioner avers that pursuance 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.
5. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter-affidavit,
significantly makes the following admission :
"The Award No.9/73-74 dated 5.6.1973 also came to be
passed in accordance with the law and in pursuance thereof,
the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land
falling in khasra number 481, 488, 506, 516 and 517 was
duly taken on the spot on 21.6.1973 and handed over to the
DDA on the spot by preparing possession proceeding on the
spot. The possession of khasra number 535, 536 and 537
however could not be taken. The compensation for khasra
number 481, 488 min and 506 was sent to Reference Court on
12.02.1974 being disputed u/s 30-31 of the Act, 1894 whereas
the compensation for khasra number 516, 517, 535 and 537
was duly paid to the recorded owners on 13.09.1982 and
29.04.1991 as per NakshaMuntazamin/ Statement-A and the
compensation for khasra number 536 was lying deposited in
RD."
6. It is evident that the possession of land in Khasra No.535, 536 and
537 has not been taken so far. The counter-affidavit does not reveal if any
compensation for acquisition of the land in Khasra No.536 was paid to the
recorded owner.
7. The Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (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. As the respondents have not denied that the possession of the land in
Khasra No. 535, 536 and 537 has not taken over, in the present case, the
petitioner is entitled to the declaration sought to that extent. Accordingly, it
is held that acquisition of suit land in Khasra No. 535, 536 and 537 vide
award No.9/1973-74 dated 05.06.1973 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue
of Section 24(2) of the Act.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 11, 2017 / tr
