Delhi High Court
Changa vs Union Of India & Ors. on 17 July, 2017
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 17th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9690/2015 & CM APPL. 23178/2015
CHANGA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Minal Sehgal, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B /LAC.
Mr.Ahmad Ziad, 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. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition of his land
measuring 1200 sq.yards (65 x 166) out of Khasra No.341-
342/83/2(min), Village Saroda Bangar, Revenue Estate Shahdara,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') has lapsed in terms 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 petitioner avers that he purchased the suit land from one
Harkesh (the recorded owner) on 12.04.1999 by way of execution of
GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc. The petitioner continues to be in
physical possession of the suit land.
3. It is further averred that land measuring 1058 bighas and 9
biswas in village Chilla Saroda Bangar which included the suit land
was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, vide Award
No.52-E/71-72 (Supplementary). After the award possession of only
of agricultural land / open land was taken by the Land Acquisition
Collector. Consequently, the possession of the suit land was not taken
over due to pakka structure built upon it. It is further claimed that the
compensation has not been offered or tendered to the petitioner for the
acquisition of the suit land.
4. The respondent No.1 through LAC, in its counter-affidavit, in
Paras (4, 4A & 5) stated :
"4. That the present writ petition is further liable to
be dismissed as the petitioner has not placed on
record any document showing therein theirentitlement
over the subject land as he is not the recorded owners
in the revenue records thus the petitioners are not
entitled to any relief before the Hon'ble Court under
the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is further liable
to be dismissed as the person namely one Harkesh
through whom the petitioner has claimed to have get
executed the inadmissible title documents such as
"CPA/ WILL/ Agreement to Sell" is also not the
recorded owner of the subject land falling in khasra
number 341-342/83/2 min which was acquired in two
parts for (1-02) and (2-10) respectively under the
Award No. 52-E/71-72 (Suppl) in village Chilla
Saroda Bangar. It is pertinent to mention here that the
petitioner has been claiming relief of 1200 sq. yds out
of the total land.
4A. That the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the Gaon Sabha has been shown has
been shown as recorded owner for the above-said
khasra number having min for (1-02) whereas the
other min for (2-10) have been shown in the names of
private persons. The writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the petitioner has not impleaded the
Gaon Sabha as a necessary party in the present writ
petition.
5. That it is submitted that for purposes of planned
development of Delhi, the answering respondent
issued a Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 on 13.11.1959 which was followed by
Notification u/s 6 of the said Act dated 20.6.1966 for
the acquisition of the lands falling in the khasra
numbers under reference in village Chilla Saroda
Bangar. That an Award bearing no. 52-E/71-72
(Suppl.) also came to be passed and the actual
physical possession of (1-12) out of the khasra
number 341-342/83/2 min which was acquired in two
parts for (1-02) and (2-10) respectively was duly
taken on the spot by preparing possession proceeding
and handed over to the DDA on the spot. It is further
submitted that having an apportionment dispute, the
compensation for various khasra numbers including
the khasra under reference and having min (1-02) was
sent to the Reference Court u/s 30-31 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for asum of Rs. 10,87,645.12 on
16.4.1978. It is further submitted that as per statement
A, the compensation of the land for other min i.e (2-
10) in the said khasra number along-with other
khasra numbers, a sum of Rs. 1,35,117.44 was paid to
the recorded owners however the payment register is
not traceable in the office of the answering
respondent, thus it could not be informed at this stage
as to how much amount has been paid for which
khasra number and to whom. It is humbly submitted
that the answering respondent was trying to relocate
the the payment file which caused delay in filing the
present counter affidavit."
5. It is evident that the petitioner is not the recorded owner of the
suit land falling in Khasra No.341-342/83/2 min which was acquired
in two parts for (1-02) and (2-10) respectively under the Award
No.52-E/71-72 (Suppl). It further discloses that Gaon sabha has been
shown to the recorded owner for the above-said khasra number having
min for (1-02) whereas the other min for (2-10) has been shown in the
names of private persons. Actual physical possession of the suit land
has already been taken and handed over to DDA. It further records
that having an apportionment dispute, the compensation in various
khasra numbers including the suit land was sent to the Reference
Court under Section 30-31 of the old Act for a sum of `10,87,645.12
on 16.04.1978 for land having min (1-02). Compensation of the land
for other min i.e. (2-10), amounting to `1,35,117.44 was paid to the
recorded owners.
6. The petitioner allegedly purchased the suit land in question
from one Harkesh in 1999 on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell,
etc. The petitioner never got the property mutated in his name.
Nothing is on record to infer if any intimation was ever given by the
petitioner to the concerned authorities regarding purchase of the
property in question. These documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell,
etc. even are not registered ones. The petitioner has not placed on
record any cogent or credible document to show if Harkesh from
whom the property in question was allegedly purchased was the
recorded owner of the suit land.
7. Since the petitioner has not filed any document on record to
show as to how he was entitled to receive compensation, relief
claimed cannot be granted to him under Section 24(2) of the Act.
8. The petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands
disposed of.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 17, 2017 / tr
