Delhi High Court
Jai Singh vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 2 May, 2017
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 02nd May, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 3284/2016 & CM No. No.13975/2016
JAI SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Vijay Joshi, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Singh, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr.S.K.Seth and Ms.Dolly Sharma,
Advocates for respondent Nos.4&5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner claims to be a part owner of a plot of land
bearing No.36-A, admeasuring 207 square yards falling in Khasra
No.140/8, falling in revenue estate of Village Dichaon Kalan, Delhi .
The petitioner claims to have purchased the plot on 09.01.2004 on
the basis of a general power of attorney and alleges to be in
possession of the property since its purchase.
2. On 07.04.2006, land admeasuring 407 bigha 19 biswas of
village Dichaon Kalan, Delhi was notified under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notification bearing No.F.9(88)
2004/L&B/LA/176. The objections were called and on 04.04.2007
the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued as the land was
required to be taken for construction of 100 meter road under the
Planned Development of Delhi.
3. On 31.12.2011 public notice was issued under Section 17(2) of
the Act for vacating all structures in the aforesaid Khasra numbers.
However, the petitioner alleges that neither the possession of his land
was taken by the appropriate government nor any compensation was
paid to him, hence he intends to claim benefit under Section 24(2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by way of
this petition.
4. The counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent and the
relevant assertions are in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 which is as under:-
"4. That the present writ petition is a gross abuse
of process, of law and is misconceived as the
petitioners have not approached the Hon'ble Court
with clean hands as the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition in his own name without the
petitioner being a recorded owner of the subject
property. The present writ petition is further liable
to be dismissed as the petitioner vide letter dated
10.1.2012 has duly admitted that he purchased the
property on basis of GPA and compensation be
released in his name and not in the name of
recorded owners. The present writ petition is
further liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has
entered in Agreement to Sell dated 9.1.2004
portraying that he had purchased 207 sq. yds out
of khasra number 140//8 however there is also an
affidavit by one Didar Singh that he had given
attorney only for 67 sq. yds out of the said 207 sq.
yds. The writ petition is further liable to be
dismissed as petitioner has relied upon another
GPA dated 22.5.08 portraying another parcel of
140 sq. yds in the said khasra number. On basis of
the GPA/ Agreement to Sell, the petitioner cannot
claim that he became the recorded owner of the
property as GPA/Agreement to Sell does not
confer any right, title or interest on the petitioner
akin to the sale documents.
5. That it is submitted that the lands of village
Dhichaon Kala were notified vide Notification
under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
7.4.2006 which was followed by Notification under
section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated
4.4.2007. The Award No.10/08-09 dated
30.12.2008 was also passed in accordance with
the law under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The actual vacant physical possession
of the land measuring (4-06) falling in khasra
number 140//8 (4-16) was taken on the spot on
10.2.2012 and handed over to the DDA on the spot
by preparing possession proceeding and the
compensation was duly deposited with the Hon'ble
Court in CM(M) No. 1416/2013 on 30.12.2013."
5. Thus, according to the respondents, the physical possession of
the land admeasuring (4-06) falling in Khasra number 140//8 (4-16),
including the subject land was taken at the spot on 10.02.2012 and
was handed over to the DDA by preparing possession proceedings
and the compensation was duly deposited with the Court in CM(M)
No.1416/2013 on 30.12.2013. Now, once the possession was taken
by the appropriate government, the possession of the petitioner, if
any, can only be treated as that of a trustee on behalf of public at large
and it cannot be a ground for enhanced compensation.
6. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner is not included in the
Award as a claimant, probably, because he sold his plot to someone to
avoid acquisition. Hence the fact if any compensation was tendered
to the recorded owner or to any one else is a disputed question of fact
and cannot be decided in this writ. Admittedly, the compensation
stands duly deposited in the Court in CM(M) No.1416/2013 on
30.12.2013. Thus, no ground is made for grant of benefit to the
petitioner under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013.
7. Consequently, the writ petition and pending miscellaneous
application are dismissed.
YOGESH KHANNA, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
MAY 02, 2017
M
