Delhi High Court
Rajeshwari vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 18 July, 2017
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 18th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 682/2017
RAJESHWARI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sunil K.Goel, Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
L& B / LAC with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.
Mr.Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for DDA.
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 respondent No.2 /LAC seeks liberty to place
on record the counter-affidavit. Liberty granted. Counter affidavit is taken
on record.
2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims her father-in-law to
be recorded owner of the agricultural land to the extent of 1/12th share i.e. 2
bighas and 13 biswas of Khasra No.481(3-0), 488(3-9), 506(3-0), 516(2-1),
517(0-16), 535(8-2), 536(7-13) & 537(3-8) total measuring 31 bighas and
0-9 biswas in the Revenue Estate of Village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Delhi.
The petitioner's claim is that acquisition of her lands (hereinafter referred to
as 'suit land') has lapsed by virtue 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').
3. The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 24.10.1961; it included
the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on 02.09.1966. The
award bearing No.9/1973-74 dated 05.06.1973 was made by the Land
Acquisition Collector.
4. The petitioner in the writ petition avers that her father-in-law was the
recorded owner of the suit land; he expired on 15.05.2006. Her husband
Babu Ram has also expired on 07.03.2010. Pursuant to the award,
possession of the suit land had already been taken by the respondents,
however, compensation in respect thereof was never paid or tendered.
Relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors., 2014 (3) SCC 183, counsel urged that the
acquisition has lapsed since five year period indicated in Section 24(2) of
the Act has ended.
5. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter-affidavit,
significantly makes the following admission :
"The Award No.9/73-74 dated 5.6.1973 also came to be
passed in accordance with the law and in pursuance thereof,
the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land
falling in khasra number 481, 488, 506, 516 and 517 was
duly taken on the spot on 21.6.1973 and handed over to the
DDA on the spot by preparing possession proceeding on the
spot. The possession of khasra number 535, 536 and 537
however could not be taken. The compensation for khasra
number 481, 488 min and 506 was sent to Reference Court on
12.02.1974 being disputed u/s 30-31 of the Act, 1894 whereas
the compensation for khasra number 516, 517, 535 and 537
was duly paid to the recorded owners on 13.09.1982 and
29.04.1991 as per NakshaMuntazamin/ Statement-A and the
compensation for khasra number 536 was lying deposited in
RD."
6. It is evident that the possession of land in Khasra No.535, 536 and
537 has not been taken so far. The counter-affidavit does not reveal if any
compensation for acquisition of the land in Khasra No.536 was paid to the
recorded owner.
7. The Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case (supra)
dealt with the issue, i.e. as to whether compensation amount has to be
actually paid, or deposited. That decision clarified that mere deposit of the
amount in the Treasury would not fulfill requirement of Section 24(2) and
that there should be a positive step to appropriate the concerned amount and
make it available to the land owner, i.e. by way of payment under Section
31(2) of the old Act, or by deposit of the compensation in Court.
8. As the respondents have not denied that the possession of the land in
Khasra No. 535, 536 and 537 has not been taken over, in the present case,
the petitioner is entitled to the declaration sought to that extent.
Accordingly, it is held that acquisition of suit land in Khasra No. 535, 536
and 537 vide award No.9/1973-74 dated 05.06.1973 is deemed to have
lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 18, 2017 / tr
