Delhi High Court
Bijender Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 July, 2017
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 17th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 1719/2016 & CM APPL. 7394/16
BIJENDER KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.M.P.Bhargava, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate with
Ms.Anju Gupta, Advocate for UOI.
Ms.Ruchika Rathi, Advocate for L&B/LAC.
Ms.Beenashan N.Soni, Advocate with Mr.Aakash
Yadav, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioners seek declaration under Section 24(2) of Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act'). It is averred that the land measuring 35 bighas 8 biswas
comprised in Khasra No. 50/3(4-16), 4(4-09), 5(4-16), 6/2(0-10),
7/1(2-08), 7/2(2-08), 8(4-16), 12/2(2-14), 13(4-07), 50/14(4-04) &
27(0-07), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Narela, Delhi,
(hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') was acquired by an award
No.243/86-87 dated 22.09.1986. Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 30.10.1963; it
included the suit land. Declaration under Section 6 of the old Act was
made on 16.01.1969. It is alleged that the petitioners have not been
paid or tendered compensation whatsoever. The physical possession
of the suit lands has not been taken by the respondents till date. It is
further averred that the suit lands is an unauthorized colony by the
name of Gautam Vihar Colony, Narela. Gautam Vihar Colony has
filed an application for regularization and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi
and the Ministry of Urban Development have issued Provisional
Certificate dated 17.09.2008 for regularization of the said colony. The
petitioners further claim themselves to be owners in actual physical
possession of the suit lands.
2. In the counter-affidavit, filed by LAC on behalf of the
appropriate Government, it is claimed that the physical possession of
the suit lands has since been taken on 23.09.1986. The recorded
owners of the suit lands were Raghunath s/o Daya Ram having 1/3rd
share, Chotan s/o Daya Ram having 1/3rd share, Rajesh Kumar s/o
Jiwan Lal having 1/12th share, Rakesh Kumar s/o Jiwan Lal having
1/12th share, Naresh Kumar s/o Jiwan Lal having 1/12th share and
Arvind Kumar s/o Jiwan Lal having 1/12th share in the suit lands.
None of the petitioners except petitioner No.2 was the recorded owner
of the suit lands. It was further claimed that the compensation amount
under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act was deposited in
the Court of learned Addl. District Judge vide cheque No. 569156
dated 12.05.2005 to the tune of `12,30,270/-.
3. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit, it reveals that
physical possession of the suit lands has since been taken. Regarding
compensation, there is specific averment that notices were sent to the
recorded owners but there was no response from any of the recorded
owners or the petitioners. The compensation was deposited in the
Court of learned Addl. District Judge in 2005. None of the petitioners
has approached the Court to claim compensation. Para (7) of the
counter-affidavit states :
"7. That it is submitted that as per the Revenue Record
available before the answering Respondent No.5, the
recorded owners are Raghunath s/o Daya Ram having
1/3rd share, Chotan s/o Daya Ram having 1/3rd share,
Rajesh Kumar s/o Jiwan Lal having 1/12th share, Rakesh
Kumar s/o Jiwan Lal having 1/12th share, Naresh Kumar
s/o Jiwan Lal having 1/12th share and Arvind Kumar s/o
Jiwan Lal having 1/12th share in Khasra No. 50/3(4-16),
4(4-09), 5(4-16), 6/2(0-10), 7/1(2-08), 7/2(2-08), 8(4-16),
12/2(2-14), 13(4-07), 50/14(4-04) & 27(0-07) comprising
24 Bighas 10 Biswas in the Revenue Estate of Village
Narela. That, none of the Petitioners are the recorded
owners of the subjected land except the Petitioner No.2.
4. The Respondent No.4/ LAC in the counter-affidavit Para (9) has
mentioned that :
".....It is submitted that the appropriate notices were
sent to recorded owners, and in the absence of any
response from the recorded owners and or any response
from any of the Petitioners, the answering Respondent
has deposited the compensation to the Court. It is further
submitted that the compensation was deposited in 2005,
since then none of the Petitioners had approached to the
Court of the ADJ."
5. The petitioners have not denied if the compensation was not
offered or tendered to the recorded owners / interested persons. They
have not revealed if they had approached the Court of learned Addl.
District Judge any time to get the compensation. Inordinate delay of
more than ten years in filing the present petition has not been
explained. No explanation has come forward as to why the petitioners
did not opt to get compensation deposited in the Court of learned
Addl. District Judge for long more than ten years.
6. Issuance of Provisional Certificate to the Gautam Vihar Colony,
Narela is inconsequential. It is not the petitioners' case that the colony
has since been regularized.
7. In the light of above discussion, the petition is devoid of merits
and it is dismissed.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 17, 2017 / tr
