Delhi High Court
Mahak Singh vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 July, 2017
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : JULY 17, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 625/2017 and CM APPL.2875/2017
MAHAK SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Lalit Rawal with Mr.Sunil K.Goel,
Advocates.
versus
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate, for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
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 petitioner seeks permission to place on
record counter affidavit. The counter affidavit is hereby taken on
record.
2. The petitioner seeks declaration that the acquisition of land in
Khasra No.270 min (3-06)1/2 i.e.(01-13) 1/3rd share i.e.0-11 biswas
having 1/5th share measuring 110 sq.yds. situated in the Revenue Estate
W.P.(C)625/2017 Page 1
of Village Ghonda Gujaran Khadar, Shahdara has lapsed under Section
24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. The petitioner avers that his father Bharat Singh was the recorded
owner of the suit land. He died intestate, thereafter, petitioner inherited
1/5th share in the suit land. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act was made on 23.09.1989. It included the suit land.
Notification under Section 6 of the Old Act was made on 20.06.1990.
Award bearing No.8/1992-93 was made thereafter.
4. The petitioner claimed that only symbolic possession of the suit
land has been taken over by the respondents; its physical possession
was never taken. No compensation, whatsoever, was paid to the land
owners.
5. Para No. 5 & 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents
read as under:
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
23.6.1989 which was followed by Notification u/s 6 of the
said Act dated 20.6.1990 for planned development of Delhi
for the acquisition of the lands falling in village Ghonda
Gujran Khadar. That an Award bearing No.8/92-93 dated
19.6.1992 was also passed and the actual vacant physical
possession of the subject lands falling in khasra numer 270
min (3-06) was taken on the spot by preparing possession
proceedings dated 21.3.2007 and handed over to the DDA
on the spot whereas the compensation was also paid to
Sh.Narayan Singh ½ share and Sh.Rattan Singh ½ share,
both sons of Sh.Tej Ram on 20.08.2007 for Kh.No.270 min
(1-13) and the ownership of the Kh.No.270 min (1-13)
W.P.(C)625/2017 Page 2
Gram Sabha Gaddhe. It is submitted that having taken the
actual vacant physical possession of the subject land, the
above-said persons applied for release of compensation
and after completion of due formalities by them, the
compensation was duly released in their favor."
8. That it is submitted that the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 did not provide any section which is akin to Section
101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 which provides for return of unutilized land to its
erstwhile owners. It is further submitted that the present
acquisition proceedings are not covered under the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as
not only the Award has been duly made but also the
possession of majority of the awarded land has been taken
as also the payment of majority of compensation to the
recorded owners has been made. It is further submitted
that the present acquisition proceedings are covered under
Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 and are not
repealed as urged by the petitioners.
6. It is evident that the possession of the suit land has since been
taken on 21.03.2007. Compensation is stated to have been paid to the
shareholders i.e.Narayan Singh (1/2 share) and Sh.Rattan Singh (1/2
share), both sons of Sh.Tej Ram on 20.08.2007 for Khasra No.270
min.(1-13). It further mentions that ownership of Khasra No.270
min.(1-13) is of Gram Sabha Gaddhe.
7. The petitioner has not placed on record any credible document to
show if the suit land belonged to him or his father. The suit land was
never mutated in petitioner's name in revenue record.
8. He did not move the respondents any time to claim compensation
for acquisition of suit land. Khatauni of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar,
W.P.(C)625/2017 Page 3
Shahdara placed on record pertains to the year 1976-77 where the name
of the petitioner and his father does not find mention. The petitioner has
not disclosed as to how the ownership of the suit land has been recorded
in the name of 'Gram Sabha Gaddhe' in revenue records.
9. Considering the above facts, apparently the petitioner has no
locus to seek declaration under Section 24(2) of the Act.
10. The petition is dismissed. All pending application(s) also stand
disposed of.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 17, 2017/sa
W.P.(C)625/2017 Page 4
