Delhi High Court
Sudhir Shukla vs Government Of National Capital ... on 31 July, 2017
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 31st JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 11453/2015 & CM APPL. 30255/15
SUDHIR SHUKLA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Deepika U.Marwaha, Advocate
with Mr.Vinay Kumar Shailendra, Ms.W.Kasar,
Mr.Vaibhav Rai Asthana & Mr.Alok Pandey,
Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/LAC.
Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Advocate with Ms.Gauri
Chaturvedi & Ms.Akshita Minocha, 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. 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 petitioner claims himself to be
recorded owner of 1/4th share out of 3 bighas and 10 biswas of the land
bearing Khasra No.1805 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village
Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
'suit land') by virtue of Sale Deed dated 23.12.1981. It was mutated
in his name on 19.02.1982. The petitioner's claim is that acquisition
of 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 27.06.1996; it
included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on
03.03.1997. The award bearing No.3/1998-99/S.W dated 26.02.1999
was made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
4. The petitioner 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. 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, states in Para (8) :
"8. That the acquisition proceedings qua the notified
land i.e. khasra number 1805 (3-10) did not form part of
any previous litigation nor there was any stay on
proceedings, hence the actual vacant physical
possession of said khasra number was duly taken on the
spot on 31.12.2013 and handed over to DDA on the
spot. So far as compensation is concerned the
compensation amount has not been received from
requisitioning authority. Thus, the compensation
amount could not be paid to the interested persons."
6. It is evident that though possession of the suit lands was taken
over on 31.12.2013, no 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
suit land has not been paid, the petitioner is entitled to the declaration
sought. Accordingly, it is held that acquisition of suit land in Khasra
No.1805 to the extent of 1/4th (out of 3 bighas and 10 biswas) vide
award No.3/1998-99/S.W dated 26.02.1999 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 31, 2017 / tr
