Delhi High Court
Gajraj Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 13 July, 2017
$~12 & 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : JULY 13, 2017.
+ W.P.(C) 4721/2002
ATTAR SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 436/2003
GAJRAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
Versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Sumit Bansal with Ms.Richa Oberoi
and Mr.Prateek Kohli, Advocates for
the petitioners in Item No.12.
Mr.Saroj Bidawah, Advocate, for UOI
in Item No.12 and 13.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate, for
DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
W.P.(C)4721/2002& connected matter Page 1
1. In these proceedings, the petitioners had originally sought for
quashing of the acquisition of lands which are located at Revenue Estate
of village Pochanpur and village Holambi Kalan. The petitioners in
W.P.(C) 4721/2002 claim to be the owner of Khasra Nos.12/11(4-6),
12/1(3-7), 12/2(1-9), 19(4-16), 20/1(0-7), 22(4-16), 23/1(1-12) and
27(0-10) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Pochanpur, Delhi.
The petitioner in W.P.(C)436/2003 claims to be owner of Khasra
No.96/99/1 (4-2) and 99/2(0-14) of Rectangle No.96, situated in the
Revenue Estate of village Holambi Kalan.
2. When these Writ Petitions were originally entertained, the court
had granted status quo order restraining the respondents from
dispossessing the petitioners from the properties.
3. In W.P.(C) No.4721/2002, the lands were sought to be acquired
vide Notifications No.F.10(3)/96/L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000
under Section 4 and declaration No.F.10(3))/96/L&B/LA/14062 dated
7.12.2001 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In W.P.(C)
No.436/2003, Notification No.F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7329 under Section
4 and declaration No.F.10(32))/96/L&B/LA/6752 under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 22.08.2001 and 5.7.2002
respectively. This was followed up by the publication of Award
No.18/03-04 dated 30.10.2002. The declaration issued under Section
24(2) confined to the petitioners' land in both the matters. The
acquisition proceedings terminated with the publication of Award
No.30/2002-03.
4. During the pendency of these proceedings, Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
W.P.(C)4721/2002& connected matter Page 2
and Settlement Act, 2013 was enacted and brought into force w.e.f.
1.1.2014. The petitioners confined their submissions for declaring the
acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Act. Section
24 of the said Act reads as follows:
"24.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 -
(a)Where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of
this Act relating to the determination of compensation
shall apply; or
(b)Where an award under said Section 11 has been
made, then such proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the
said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section
11 has been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the
land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid
the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance
with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not
been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under
section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
W.P.(C)4721/2002& connected matter Page 3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with the advent
of the New Act and on account of the judgments of the Supreme Court,
in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, Civil Appeal
No.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014, the petitioners were entitled for
the declaration. The Supreme Court expressed its opinion as follows:
"8. 2013 Act puts in place entirely new regime for compulsory
acquisition of land and provides for new scheme for
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected
families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be
acquired or affected by such acquisition.
9. To turn, now, to the meaning of the expression
"compensation has not been paid" in Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act and its effect on the subject acquisition, it is
necessary to refer to Section 24 which reads as follows:
"24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
in any case of land acquisition W.P.(C.) No.2299/2002
Page 7 of 11 proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, -
(a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of
this Act relating to the determination of compensation
shall apply; or
(b) Where an award under said section 11 has been
made, then such proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the
said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection
(1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award
W.P.(C)4721/2002& connected matter Page 4
under the said section 11 has been made five years or
more prior to the commencement of this Act but the
physical possession of the land has not been taken or the
compensation has not been paid the said proceedings
shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate
Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in
accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holding
has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the
notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said
Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation
in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
6. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C )No.2299/2002 tilted
Santosh Singh & Ors.vs.UOI & Ors, decided on 13.11.2014, held after
overall consideration of the provisions of new Act-New Section 19,
24(2) and Section 69, that the situation where interim orders were made
by the court too would fall within the ambit of Section 24(2). In
Santosh Singh & Ors (Supra) it was held as follows:
"A close analysis of the above provisions would reveal that
Section 19 enables the acquisition process by the appropriate
Government issuing a declaration, Section 19 (6) is an
important exception in that it imposes a limitation on the
power itself (i.e limitation for making declaration). In case the
time limit is not adhered to, the acquisition lapses. The proviso
to Section 19 (6) recognizes that sometime Court intervention
by interim orders impede the appropriate Government from
issuing declarations. Section 69 (2) enables increased
compensation; yet, the explanation provides that if the
landowner secures an interim order, the period spent in
litigation, particularly when the interim order subsists, cannot
be given benefit to him while calculating interest. Thus,
W.P.(C)4721/2002& connected matter Page 5
limitation of power freshly conferred or created by the Act
does not follow a uniform pattern. The object of the provision
in question defines how the allusion to interim orders of court
are dealt with. However, Section 24 (2) is a special provision
that but for its enactment, would have resulted in the operation
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in that all action taken under
the old law would have been preserved. It therefore had to be
construed in the context of the old enactment which clearly
contemplated exclusion of time at the different stages when
interim orders subsisted (i.e to make declaration after
preliminary notification and also extended period for making
the award). These perspectives are indicative of a contrary
interpretation. However, this Court notices that the ruling of
the Supreme Court on this aspect is decisive; it consequently
binds it."
7. Admitted position is that the possession of the suit lands has not
been taken so far. The facts of the present case, in the opinion of the
Court, are covered by the ruling in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Association (supra) as followed by Santosh Singh & Ors (Supra) by a
Division Bench of this Court.
8. Consequently, the Writ Petitions succeed. The declaration is
issued that the acquisition of the suit lands is deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act.
9. At this stage, this Court is also informed that decision in Santosh
Singh & Ors. and several other judgments have been referred to a
Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, to examine the correctness of the
view taken by the Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Association (supra), with respect to inclusion of time under
Section 24(2) wherever status quo or interim orders were made for the
purpose of possession, nature and title of the suit property under Section
W.P.(C)4721/2002& connected matter Page 6
24(2). In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinions that even
while declaring the acquisition to have lapsed under Section 24(2), in
the present cases, the ultimate decision in those appeals would be
abided by the parties in these proceedings.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
JULY 13, 2017/sa
W.P.(C)4721/2002& connected matter Page 7
