Delhi High Court
Dharam Singh vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 14 July, 2017
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 14th JULY, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 3867/2017, CM APPL.17023/2017
DHARAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sanjay Parikh with Mr.Aagnes Sail,
Ms.Ninni.S.Thomas and Ms.Maulshree
Pathak, Advocates.
versus
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
Respondents No.1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner has 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 '2013 Act') i.e.
a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of his land
be deemed to have been 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 petitioner had received compensation
but have also remained in continuous physical possession of the land in
W.P.(C)3867/2017 Page 1
question even though the award was made more than five years prior to
the commencement of 2013 Act (i.e. on 1.1.2014).
2. The petitioner avers that he is the owner of the land in village
Poothkhurd, Rectangle No.97-Khasra Nos.1(1-05), 2(4-15), 9(4-16),
10(4-03), 11(6-02) & 12 (6-12). A Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 'old Act') was
issued to acquire land for public purpose, namely, 'for development of
new industrial area' admeasuring 1343 bighas & 03 biswas of land in
village Kanjhawala, 1744 bighas & 09 biswas in village Sultanpur
Dabas, 1905 bighas & 05 biswas of land in village Karala and 30 bighas
& 09 biswas in village Poothkhurd on 25.08.2005. It included the suit
land. A declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act was issued on
10.07.2006 and the Award No.1/2008-09/DC(N-W) dated 7.3.2008 was
made.
3. The petitioner further avers that on 18.12.2008 a sum of
`1,44,98,413 was received by him as compensation. On 28.11.2011, he
received a sum of `1,26,51,481/- as further relief. The said amount has
been withdrawn by him.
4. The petitioner's contention is that despite payment of
compensation, physical possession of the suit land has not been taken
from him and he continues to cultivate the suit land till date.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that this identical
issue raised in the present Petition has already been decided by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhim Singh vs.Govt.of NCT of Delhi
& Anr. [W.P.(C)9101/2014] and Jai Kishan & Anr. Vs.Government of
NCT of Delhi & Ors [W.P.(C) 5395/2015]. Number of other connected
W.P.(C)3867/2017 Page 2
petitions were also disposed of by the said judgments delivered on
20.12.2016 and 21.02.2017 respectively. This position has not been
disputed by the petitioner.
6. On perusal of the judgments in Bhim Singh and Jai Kishan
(supra), it is revealed that the contentions raised in the present petition
are identical and covered by the said judgments. In the instant petition,
the petitioner has admittedly record of compensation and additional
payment under the Special Rehabilitation Package. It is not in dispute
that while receiving additional payment under the Special
Rehabilitation Package, the petitioner had given up all his rights in
respect of the said acquired lands.
7. It was noted in Bhim Singh (supra) case that in the meanwhile, on
01.10.2008 the Government of NCT of Delhi had issued order no.
F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/Vol.II/8226-44 in respect of a Special
Rehabilitation Package for people affected by land acquisition in
respect of the cases in which the land acquisition awards had not been
announced till December 18, 2007. Since the award in the present case
was announced in 2008, the petitioners became eligible for the Special
Rehabilitation Package. But that package was subject to certain terms.
8. It was further noted in para Nos.7,8,9 and 10 as under:
7. In paragraph 10 of the undertaking it has been
clearly recorded that on the acceptance of
compensation including the Special Rehabilitation
Package, all the rights of the said Bhim Singh (which is
also the case in all the other petitions) "qua the
acquired land shall cease" and "no cause of action
shall arise for agitating the matter in any court of law
or authority or authorities". This undertaking was
W.P.(C)3867/2017 Page 3
made in 2011, much prior to the commencement of the
2013 Act which, as mentioned earlier, happened on
01.01.2014.
8. The plea of the petitioners is founded on their claim
that they are still in actual physical possession of the
subject lands. The respondents contend otherwise. The
respondents‟ contention is based on two planks. The
first being the factum of possession proceedings of
11.07.2008 as per annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit
of Respondent no.2 (Land & Building Department,
Govt of NCT of Delhi) in the lead case (Bhim Singh -
WPC 9101/2014). The second being that the
petitioners, in their applications seeking compensation,
have admitted that "possession" had be taken by the
concerned authorities. De hors this, the respondents
also contend that in this batch of matters the petitioners
have willingly opted for the Special Rehabilitation
Package and, while doing so, have given up all their
rights in the acquired lands. This happened in 2011,
much prior to the 2013 Act. Therefore, on 01.01.2014,
the petitioners had no right whatsoever in respect of the
subject lands.
9. Insofar as the arguments of the respondents with
regard to possession are concerned, the learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a
clear distinction between mere "possession" and actual
"physical possession". The learned counsel sought to
place reliance on several decisions of the Supreme
Court to contend that "physical possession" of the
subject lands had not been taken over. The decisions
were: (1) State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan:
(2011) 7 SCC 639; (2) NTPC v. Mahesh Dutta & Ors:
(2009) 8 SCC 339; (3) Banda Development Authority v.
Motilal Agarwal & others: (2011) 5 SCC 394; (4)
Prahlad Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors: (2011) 5
SCC 385; (5) Raghubir Singh Sherawat v. State of
Haryana: (2012) 1 SCC 792; (6) Magnum Promoters v.
W.P.(C)3867/2017 Page 4
Union of India: (2015) 3 SCC 327; (7) Velaxan Kumar
v. Union of India: (2015) 4 SCC 325. But, in our view,
it would not be necessary for us to examine the issue as
to whether the petitioners were or were not in actual
physical possession. In fact, we need not even examine
the two planks of the respondents‟ counter argument
qua possession.
10. The key point in this batch of matters is whether the
petitioners had any right left in subject lands? As noted
above, in the undertakings given by the petitioners in
2011, while opting for the Special Rehabilitation
Package and receiving additional payments thereunder,
they had clearly divested themselves of all their rights
in respect of the subject acquired lands. Thus, at the
time of commencement of the 2013 Act on
01.01.2014, the petitioners had no right, title or interest
left in the subject lands. Therefore, they cannot claim
any benefit under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. On this
ground alone, the writ petitions are liable to be
dismissed. 11. Consequently, we dismiss the writ
petitions but, with no order as to costs. Interim orders,
if any, stand vacated.
9. This Court finds no sound reasons to take different view on the
issues already decided.
10. Consequently, we dismiss the Writ Petition but, with no order as
to costs. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 14, 2017/sa
W.P.(C)3867/2017 Page 5
