Delhi High Court
The Jag Jiwan Cooperative Group ... vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 1 May, 2017
$~03
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01st May, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 11238/2016
THE JAG JIWAN COOPERATIVE
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.S.S.Mishra, Advocate.
versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Tarun Sharma,
Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocate for
respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Mr.Pawan Mathur, Advocate for
DDA.
Ms.Anju Gupta and Mr.Roshan Lal
Goel, Advs. for SDMC/respondent
Nos.7 &8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner society has filed this petition praying for the
quashing of the notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; as also the award bearing No.43/1986-
87 and seeks further direction against the respondents not to interfere
with or obstruct their peaceful possession over the subject land.
2. The petitioner society claims to be the absolute owner and in
possession of land measuring 32 bigha and 3 biswas (32048 square
yards) comprised in Khasra No.410(30-13) and 414 (2) (1-10)
situated in the revenue estate of Village Kasoompur, Tehsil Vasant
Vihar, Delhi which it claims to have purchased vide agreement to sell
dated 21.07.1990, receipt dated 05.06.1991, letter of possession dated
11.06.1991 and general power of attorney dated 30.10.1991 executed
by the recorded owners namely Ram Kishan, Ajit Singh, Ram
Chander Azad Singh, Jaswant Singh, Kinku and Shibban.
3. The subject land was a part of the notification bearing
F.No.4(98)/64-L&H dated 23.01.1965 issued under Section 4 of the
Act. On 06.09.1966, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was
issued and then the award bearing No.43/1986-87 in respect to the
subject land was passed.
4. It is alleged by the petitioner society that the land was never
acquired by the respondents and it remained in its possession and as
the compensation was never tendered or paid to the recorded owners
or to the petitioners, the notification under Section 6 of the Act ought
to be declared as having lapsed per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) - respondent No.6 has
filed its counter affidavit and its para Nos.4 & 5 being relevant are
stated below:-
"4. That the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the petitioners are neither the
recorded owner of the subject land falling in
Khasra number 410 (30-13) and 414 (1-10) total
(31-03) falling in village Kasoom Pur nor the
petitioner which is stated to be a CGHS have filled
the registration certificate nor it has filed the list
of its members and other related documents as to
whether the petitioner society is still available or
defunct, thus the writ petition by the petitioner is
not maintainable.
5. That the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the notification u/s 4 of the Act, 1894
was issued on 23.01.1965 as the public purpose
was for the construction of a Government School,
which was followed by Award No. 43/86-87, the
only challenge on the subject Khasra number vide
writ petition number 1282/86 was also vanished
with the dismissal of the writ petition on
27.05.1997, the actual vacant physical possession
of the subject property was taken on the spot on
05.08.1997 and handed over to the DDA on the
spot by preparing possession proceeding on the
spot. It is pertinent to mention here that the writ
petition was filed by the recorded owners and
during, the pendency of the said writ petition, the
recorded owners cannot enter in any „Agreement
to Sell‟/ Receipt/ Possession Proceeding dated
11.6.1991 with the petitioner herein. It is
reiterated that even otherwise, the actual vacant
physical possession of the subject land was taken
on the spot by the answering respondent and
handed over to the petitioner till date. Thus, it is
submitted that under section 16 of the Act, 1894,
the said land vests with the Government absolutely
and free from all encumbrances. The photographs
filed by the petitioner also reflects that the land is
not in possession of the petitioner/recorded owner
but in the physical possession of the DDA as the
same is lying vacant and undeveloped. It is further
submitted that having admitted that the recorded
owner sold the subject land during the pendency of
the said writ petition, the recorded owners were
left with any interest in seeking for compensation
from the office of the answering respondent and
the compensation amount is lying in RD."
6. The recorded owners earlier filed a Civil Writ Petition
No.1282/1983 and within its pendency they allegedly had sold the
subject land to the petitioner society. The said writ petition was
dismissed on 27.05.1997.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner did not confront the respondents
when the possession of the subject property was taken over at the spot
on 05.08.1997 or when it was handed over to the Delhi Development
Authority vide the possession proceedings. There is no challenge to
the possession proceedings by the petitioner till date, hence the land
now absolutely vests with the government. The photographs filed by
the petitioner do not in any way reflect the subject land still in
possession of the petitioner. It is settled law that once the possession
of subject land is taken, its unauthorised occupation would not de-
vest the government of the land. The petitioners also did not
challenge the determination of the compensation pursuant to the
award dated 13.09.1986. Such compensation is now lying deposited
in RD.
8. As the petitioner society is not a recorded owner of the subject
property and as its name does not exist in the list of claimants, given
in the subject award, so there is no way for us to find if the recorded
owners were ever tendered the compensation. The petitioner's
reference to the reply dated 17.08.2009 of the ADM/SW to the effect
that no reference under Section 18 of the Act was filed against Khasra
No.410(30-13) and 414 (2) (1-10) situated in the revenue estate of
Village Kasoompur, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, Delhi or the possession of
the land in aforesaid Khasra numbers has not been taken over, are
disputed facts which questions cannot be dealt with in the writ.
9. Hence, there is no cogent ground for giving the declaration or
directions as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
YOGESH KHANNA, J
MAY 01, 2017
M
