Delhi High Court
Kartari Devi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 July, 2017
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 25th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 5741/2015 & CM APPL. 10326/2015
KARTARI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through : None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Manish Mohan, CGSC for UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for Mr.Siddhartha
Panda, Standing Counsel for L&B/LAC.
Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal,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. Present writ petition was preferred by Kartari Devi through her
attorney Jeet Singh to seek a declaration that acquisition in respect of land
in Khasra No. 1159/120/1/3/1 min (North) (1-3) and Khasra No.
1159/120/1/1 min (West) (1-6) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village
Madan Pur Khadar, New Delhi (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 04.04.1964; it included
the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on 07.12.1966. The
award bearing No.87/80-81/Suppl. dated 30.12.1981 was made by the Land
Acquisition Collector.
3. The petitioner avers that she is the recorded owner of the suit land.
She further avers 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.
4. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter-affidavit,
states in Para (6) :
"6. That the land in question i.e., Khasra No. 1159/120/1/3/1
min (1-3) and 1159/120/1/1 min (1-6), situated at the
revenue estate of village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi was
notified under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act on
04.04.1964 followed by declaration under section 6 of Land
Acquisition Act on 07.12.1966 for Planned Development of
Delhi. In pursuance of said notification, notices under
section 9 & 10 as provided under the Act, were issued to the
interested persons, inviting the claims from all the interested
persons and claims were also filed by the interested persons.
The than Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No.
87/80-81/ Suppl. dated 30.12.1981 after considering the
claims of the claimants. It is pertinent to mention here that
the total extent of land in Khasra No.1159/120/1/3/1 (1-08)
and 1159/120/1/1 (2-10) which was awarded vide above said
award. Further, possession of the land bearing Khasra No.
1159/120/1/3/1 (00-05) and 1159/120/1/1 (1-04) was taken
over and handed over to the beneficiary department on
05.02.1982. As per the Naksha Mutzameen, the name of the
Petitioner's husband is entered against shumar no. 240 and
it is mentioned that the claimant is having 168/246 share and
the compensation amount was forwarded to the court of ADJ
under section 30/31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on
20.09.1983. Further, in the present petition the petitioner is
claiming relief with respect to Khasra nos. 1159/120/1/3/1
min (1-3) and 1159/120/1/1 min (1-6), however, as per the
revenue record the petitioner is having only 168/246 share."
5. It is evident that the possession of the suit land bearing Khasra
No.1159/120/1/3/1 (00-05) and 1159/120/1/1 (1-04) has been taken over
and handed over to the beneficiary department on 05.02.1982. It is further
informed that the name of the petitioner's husband was entered against
'shumar' no. 240 and the claimant was having only 168/246th share. The
petitioner, however, is seeking relief with respect to suit land though her
share is only 168/246th share. She is not clear as to which portion of the
Khasra had fallen into her share. Compensation is stated to have been
deposited in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge under Sections 30/31
of old Act as the share of the petitioner or her husband was not
ascertainable. Nothing is on record to show if the petitioner ever
approached the respondent / Court of learned Addl. District Judge to claim
compensation for any specific share.
6. It is further relevant to note that petitioner Kartari Devi has since
expired. Apparently, Power of Attorney executed by her in favour of Jeet
Singh has come to an end. The legal heirs of the deceased Kartari Devi
were brought on record. They have, however, not disclosed as to, to what
extent they are having share in the suit land.
7. In view of the above facts, the relief claimed under Section 24 (2) of
the Act cannot be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
S.P.GARG
JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 25, 2017 / tr
