Delhi High Court
Ishwar Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 24 July, 2017
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 24th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 709/2017
ISHWAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Rajesh Yadav with Mr.Sunil K.Goel,
Mr.Lalit K.Rawal & Mr.Siddharth Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/LAC.
Mr.Dhanesh Relan with Ms.Isha Garg, Ms.Gauri
Chaturvedi & Mr.Harshit Manaktala, Advocates for
DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims his father to be
recorded owner of the agricultural land to the extent of 1/12th share i.e. 2
bighas and 138 biswas each of the acquired land 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
his 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').
2. 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.
3. The petitioner avers that pursuant to the award, possession of the suit
land was taken over 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.
4. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter-affidavit,
significantly makes the following admission in Para (6) :
".....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."
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. As the respondents have not denied that the possession of the land in
Khasra No. 535, 536 and 537 has not taken over, 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 to the extent of petitioner's share is deemed to have lapsed by
virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act.
8. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 24, 2017 / tr
