Delhi High Court
Amrit Lal Arora & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 July, 2017
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 18th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 4771/2016 & CM APPL. 19887/2016
AMRIT LAL ARORA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.N.P.Sahni, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Roshan Lal Goel & Ms.Anju Gupta,
Advocates for UOI.
Ms.Shobhana Takiar, 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 Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 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 petitioners claim themselves to be
recorded owners of the land of Khasra No.734/2(4-3) and 736/2(2-18)
measuring 7 bighas and 1 biswa situated in the Revenue Estate of Village
Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The petitioners' claim is that
acquisition of their 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 25.11.1980; it included
the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on 27.05.1985. The
award bearing No.14/87-88 dated 14.07.1987 was made by the Land
Acquisition Collector.
4. The petitioners aver that pursuant to the award, neither physical
possession of the suit land was taken over by the respondents nor any
compensation in respect thereof was ever 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 in Para (7) :
"7. That as per the records available the actual vacant
physical possession of the land falling in khasra number
734/2(4-3) and 736/(2-18) could not be taken. As per the
Statement-A the compensation in respect of the said land
could not be paid and was sent to RD. A letter dated
14.07.2017 has been sent to PAO-6 to verify if any payment
is done from PAO-6 to the recorded owner. Till a reply is
received from the PAO-6, it is requested not to decide the
case against the interest of the Govt."
6. It is evident that neither possession of the suit lands was taken over
nor any compensation for acquisition of the suit land was tendered or paid
to the recorded owner(s).
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 compensation of the land
in Khasra No.734/2(4-3) and 736/2(2-18) has not been paid and its
possession has not been taken, in the present case, the petitioners are
entitled to the declaration sought to that extent. Accordingly, it is held that
acquisition of suit land in Khasra No.734/2(4-3) and 736/2(2-18) measuring
7 bighas and 1 biswa vide award No.14/87-88 dated 14.07.1987 is deemed
to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application
also stands disposed of.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 18, 2017 / tr
