Delhi High Court
Suraj Singh & Anr vs The Honorable Lt. Governor Raj ... on 2 May, 2017
$~09
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 02nd May, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 6395/2014
SURAJ SINGH & ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.N.Prabhakar, Advocate.
versus
THE HONORABLE LT. GOVERNOR
RAJ BHAWAN, DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for
DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
L&B/LAC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner claims a declaration as a violation of Section
24(2) the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the
acquisition of land in respect of suit lands (4 bigha 2 biswas to the
extent of 1/4th share in Khasra No.1237, 13 bigha 15 biswas to the
extent of 1/4th share, 6 bigha 01 biswa to the extent of 1/4 th share in
Khasra No.1239, 4 bigha 2 biswa to the extent of 1/4th share in
Khasra No.2538/2326/1240 min; 7 bigha 01 biswa to the extent of
1/4th share in Khasra No.2540/1241, falling revenue estate of Village
Kishangarh, Mehruli, Delhi) as lapsed.
2. The facts are that Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 for the above land was issued on 23.01.1965 for the present
case, the declaration was published on 07.12.1966. After considering
all relevant material and parties submissions the collector bring the
award dated 09.01.1981. The petitioner contends that respondent
authorities did not tender the determined compensation to him and as
a consequence by reasons of operation of Section 24(2) the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 the acquisition is deemed
to have lapsed.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) in its counter affidavit
does not dispute the essential facts. It however submits that there are
several co-sharers in respect of suit lands and that the compensation
in respect of 38 share was paid and that the Naksha Mumtzmin as
found in its record, does not mention about 1/4th share compensation
of Shri Karan Singh. It relies upon the order in Ram Prakash
Kathuria vs Union of India & Ors WP(C) No.4465/2016 to contend
that where certain co-owners have accepted the compensation the
Section 24(2) the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 cannot
be made to operate and that instead on parity the writ petitioner would
be entitled to balance compensation.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner however distinguishes that order
by saying that the writ petitioner in that case did not receive part
compensation in respect of the fragment compensation in respect of
part of his share.
5. This Court is the opinion that rule enunciated in Ram Prakash
Kathuria (supra) is squarely applicable. There the petitioner had
undoubtedly received the major amount of compensation and had
approached the Court contending that the balance amount had not
been paid. In the present case, third parties have received the
compensation in respect of their undivided shares in the same lands is
not disputed.
6. By parity of reasoning therefore, the other co-sharers are the
third parties cannot be a distinguishing factor; the same rule would
apply. The petitioners are at liberty to claim the balance amount of
determined compensation and not entitled to the declaration under
Section 24(2) the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
7. In view of above, the writ petition is therefore dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
YOGESH KHANNA, J
MAY 02, 2017
M
