Delhi High Court
Arpit Bhargava vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors. on 8 May, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 08.05.2017
+ W.P.(C) 2318/2014, C.M. APPL.6640-6641/2017
ARPIT BHARGAVA ..... Petitioner
Through : In person.
Versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Sh. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Sh. Gaurav
Singhal, Advocate, for GNCTD.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Advocates, for LAC/GNCTD.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate, for L&B/LAC.
Sh. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mini
Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vasundhara
Nayyar, Sh. Govind Chaudhary and Ms. Anushruti,
Advocates, for North DMC.
ASI Dharambir, ZO/Sadar Bazar Circle with ASI
Virender Singh, Pairavi Officer (Traffic) in person.
+ W.P.(C) 5173/2014, C.M. APPL.10297/2014, 13946/2014,
7480/2015 & 4306-4307/2017
KRISHNA MANGLA ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. Tarun Sharma, Sh. Boudh Prabha and Ms.
Akanksha Kapoor, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sh. Sunil Kumar
Jha, Advocates, for LAC/GNCTD.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate, for L&B/LAC.
Sh. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mini
Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vasundhara
Nayyar, Sh. Govind Chaudhary and Ms. Anushruti,
Advocates, for North DMC.
+ W.P.(C) 5174/2014, C.M. APPL.10299/2014, 14144/2014, 4227-
4228/2017 & 12600/2017
URMILA YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Sh. Tarun Sharma, Sh. Boudh Prabha and Ms.
Akanksha Kapoor, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Sh. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Sh.
Santosh Kumar Chaurasiya and Sh. Shambhu Chaturvedi,
Advocates, for UOI.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Advocates, for LAC/GNCTD.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate, for L&B/LAC.
Sh. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mini
Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vasundhara
Nayyar, Sh. Govind Chaudhary and Ms. Anushruti,
Advocates, for North DMC.
Sh. Sanjiv Dutta, Advocate, for applicant.
+ W.P.(C) 5362/2014, C.M. APPL.10669/2014, 7479/2015, 4308-
4309/2017 & 12498/2017
SITA RAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate.
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Sh. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Ms. Vanya
Khanna, Advocate, for UOI.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Advocates, for LAC/GNCTD.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate, for L&B/LAC.
Sh. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mini
Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vasundhara
Nayyar, Sh. Govind Chaudhary and Ms. Anushruti,
Advocates, for North DMC.
+ W.P.(C) 5618/2014, C.M. APPL.13910/2014, 4304-4305/2017
SANDEEP SACHDEVA ..... Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC, for UOI.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Advocates, for LAC/GNCTD.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate, for L&B/LAC.
Sh. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mini
Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vasundhara
Nayyar, Sh. Govind Chaudhary and Ms. Anushruti,
Advocates, for North DMC.
+ W.P.(C) 5657/2014, C.M. APPL.14008/2014, 11846-11847/2017
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Sh. Tarun Sharma, Sh. Boudh Prabha and Ms.
Akanksha Kapoor, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC, for UOI.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Advocates, for LAC/GNCTD.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate, for L&B/LAC.
Sh. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mini
Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vasundhara
Nayyar, Sh. Govind Chaudhary and Ms. Anushruti,
Advocates, for North DMC.
+ W.P.(C) 5785/2014, C.M. APPL.4230-4231/2017
SANJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC, for UOI.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Advocates, for LAC/GNCTD.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate, for L&B/LAC.
Sh. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mini
Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vasundhara
Nayyar, Sh. Govind Chaudhary and Ms. Anushruti,
Advocates, for North DMC.
+ W.P.(C) 5658/2014, C.M. APPL.14014/2014, 11842-11843/2017
HARISH CHAND GUPTA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sh. Sunil Kumar
Jha, Advocates, for LAC/GNCTD.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate, for L&B/LAC.
Sh. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mini
Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Vasundhara
Nayyar, Sh. Govind Chaudhary and Ms. Anushruti,
Advocates, for North DMC.
+ W.P.(C) 7480/2014, C.M. APPL.17707/2014, 11844-11845/2017
JOGINDER SINGH TALWAR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Sh. N.S. Vasisht, Ms. Jyoti Kataria Bajaj and
Sh. Vishal Singh, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sh. Sunil Kumar
Jha, Advocates, for LAC/GNCTD.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate, for L&B/LAC.
Sh. Rajan Sabharwal, Standing Counsel, for North MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
%
1. The claim of the petitioners, in these proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, is that the acquisition in respect of their lands is
bad in law and that they cannot be dispossessed. It is also urged that without
providing an alternative plot or handing over possession of such land, the
respondents (hereafter called "Govt. of NCT") cannot dispossess them (i.e.
the petitioners, hereafter called "the landowners").
2. In all these cases, the appropriate government, i.e. the Govt. of NCT
of Delhi (NCT) issued a notification on 20.04.2010 under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the old Act") for acquiring Land for the
purpose of constructing a Grade Separator at Rani Jhansi Road. On
29.07.2010, a Section 6 notification under the old Act, was issued to declare
that the said land is required for a public purpose. Another Notice under
Section 17(1) was also issued under the said Act to notify the acquisition of
the land on an urgent basis. On 15.06.2010 the Award was pronounced by
the Land Acquisition Collector- Central District on behalf of the
Respondents. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force in
2013, after the making of the award.
3. Complaining that no steps were taken to disburse the declared
compensation or for taking-over possession of the acquired land and also
that the promised alternate allotment has also not been made till date, it is
alleged that the impugned notice was abruptly issued, to take-over
possession during the festival season with the objective to snatch away the
petitioners' residence and source of livelihood. They are aggrieved and claim
that their fundamental rights under Articles-14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of the
Constitution of India are violated. They seek appropriate orders to quash the
notices (proposing to take over possession).
4. The respondent/authorities' argue, in their pleadings, that on
01.02.2007, the proposal to construct a grade separator was cleared by the
Technical Committee of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). It is
argued that the land is needed for a valid public purpose, i.e. to reduce the
traffic volume and time on other roads for the commuters coming from
Dhaula Kuan to St. Stephen's Hospital near Tis Hazari Court. The length of
the grade separator is 1619 mtr. long. It is an elevated corridor for smooth
traffic movement and has ramps for local traffic at DCM Chowk and Baraf
Khana Chowk. It is urged by the NCT and the MCD that physical possession
of the entire lands in village Civil Station was taken over on 07.12.2009 and
18.10.2010 respectively and handed over to MCD on the spot. It is also
argued that possession of the entire suit lands was taken over on 30.11.2010
in village Delhi, to the extent of 411.16 sq. mtr and on 29.08.2014 to the
extent of 3429.84 sq. mtr and handed-over the same to the officials of MCD
on the spot. The total area under acquisition is 3429.84 sq. mtr, and the
possession reports dated 30.11.2010 and 29.08.2014 are also relied on.
Furthermore, the NCT states that it took physical possession of the lands in
village Model Basti on 02.09.2014 and handed over the same to the officials
of MCD on the spot other than the khasra numbers where this Court had
granted stay from dispossession. The copies of the Award No. 1/2012- 13
showing therein the total area under acquisition as 1244.63 sq. mtr, are relied
on. The respondents say that 608.95 sq. mtr. land could not be taken due to
the stay granted by this court.
5. At one stage in the proceedings, on the basis of submissions made, the
court took note of the circumstance that some of the petitioners would be
eligible for allotment of alternative premises, in accordance with a policy
formulated for this purpose. The eligibility criteria, for allotment of land, in
the policy, is as follows:
(ii) (a) Those whose shops/residences or workshops/industrial
units are affected in a manner that the said premises can not be
utilized as a shop/residence, workshop/industrial unit on
acquisition of this property shall be eligible for relocation and
rehabilitation under the scheme. In case of premises where less
than 50 percent has been acquired and the recorded owner can
continue to reside/work from there, would not be eligible for
rehabilitation under the scheme.
(b) In case of shops the recorded owner will be eligible.
(c) In case of residential units, the rehabilitation will cover only
owner's residing in the premises. Tenants would not be eligible
under the scheme."
The policy further required that a committee comprised of the following
officers would be constituted:
(a) ADM/LAC concerned.
(b) Representative(s) of land requisitioning department.
(c) Representative(s) of local body concerned.
(d) Representative(s) of DDA.
6. The NCT, in its affidavit, dated 31.01.2017, states that separate
individual notices each dated 27.12.2016 were issued to the petitioners by
the ADM/LAC (Central). All the said notices were sent by speed post on
28.12.2016 except to Shri Arpit Bhargava, whose notice was sent by speed
post on 30.12.2016. The notices were served by pasting and by serving the
same individually as well. By the notices, the above petitioners were asked
to appear on 02.01.2016 in person or by a pleader duly authorized and
instructed and able to answer all material questions, or accompanied by some
authorized person, able to answer all such questions relating to their claim
and indicating to them that they must be prepared to produce on that day all
the relevant documents including ownership/title documents, in original.
7. Learned counsel reiterated their respective contentions; it was
submitted on behalf of the petitioners, that unless these proceedings are kept
pending and they are actually allotted alternative accommodation, in terms
of the policy, their claims would never see the light of the day, as the
respondents would continue to deny their liabilities. It is urged that this
court's intervention has lent some measure of protection, or else the
petitioners would not have been able to secure any property or continue their
livelihood. Counsel highlighted that the respondents as State are duty-bound
to honor Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Their wilful disregard of
these provisions means that they have no intention of acting fairly.
8. In W.P.(C) 2318/2014, a public interest litigant (Arpit Bhargava)
seeks direction that the respondents, i.e. the MCD and the NCT should
immediately take steps in constructing the Rani Jhansi Grade
Separator/flyover by removing all obstacles in construction within a time-
bound manner. The main grievance here is that although there is a crying
need for the grade separator which would de-congest traffic and despite the
fact that this plan was conceived for the Commonwealth Games (which took
place about 7 years ago) the respondents have not shown the will to take
over possession and complete the project. It is argued by the public interest
litigant that the repeated litigation which has been initiated by the
landowners, to somehow stall the completion of the project and the
respondent's inability to ensure that those proceedings do not delay the
project completion, show their complicity and lack of will. The public
interest litigant, therefore, seeks appropriate directions.
9. The record would show that acquisition of land was concededly for
the public purpose of constructing a grade separator. The materials also
indicate that land acquisition proceedings were complete and award too was
announced, in 2010. At that stage, W.P.(C) 4663/2010 was filed before this
court, requiring intervention. The court had disposed of the writ petition,
permitting the petitioners to approach the authorities for de-notification of
the lands. That request was turned down. Another petition - W.P.(C)
569/2013 [Anup Kumar Kamal & Ors. v. Union of India] was filed,
questioning the rejection of the de-notification application; that petition was
dismissed by a Division Bench (S. Ravindra Bhat and Najmi Waziri, JJ) on
22.07.2013. Thereafter, these petitioners have approached this court, seeking
quashing of the notices proposing to take possession of suit lands.
10. The court is of the opinion that the pendency of these proceedings, and
the interim orders, granted, have resulted in a situation where a concededly
public purpose project, i.e. construction of a grade separator, has been held-
up. This has also spawned a public interest litigation. All the petitioners do
not question the acquisition of lands; some of them complain that the
invocation of the urgency clause was not justified. Those of the petitioners
who have interest in the properties and premises occupied by them, are also
aware of the award and the amounts they are entitled to; some have even
sought for enhancement of compensation. Yet, they demand that till
alternative plots or lands are allotted, they cannot be removed and that doing
so would infringe their constitutional rights. The petitions have also adverted
to Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013) to
say that acquisition are no longer legal. The provision reads as follows:
"24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, -
a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act
relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
b) Where an award under said section 11 has been made, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the
said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section
11 has been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the
land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid
the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with
the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holding has not
been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition
under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of
this Act."
11. The basic challenge to the acquisition did not succeed; the landowners
who had sought for quashing of the acquisition were given liberty to
approach the respondent authorities for de-notification of lands. That move
did not succeed; the request was declined. Another petition [Anup Kumar
Kamal (supra)] was filed in 2013; that was rejected. Thus, the legality of
acquisition proceedings could not be re-opened. It is also a matter of record
that the respondents have taken possession of a major part of the acquired
lands; compensation determination at the Land Acquisition Collector's stage
too has attained finality. Many petitioners have of course approached the
reference court for enhancement of the amounts payable to them. A few
complain that their reference applications have not been forwarded to the
court. All of them claim a right to continue in possession, till they are
allotted and handed over alternative plots.
12. The petitioners' right to claim the reliefs that they do, to put it mildly,
is entirely misconceived. Once the land acquisition proceedings attained
finality and even compensation stood determined, there could be no question
of resisting taking over of possession, on the basis of a right to alternative
plots. The policy which is relied on nowhere postulates that without handing
over alternative premises, the executive agency cannot take over possession.
No such legal impediment exists. In the circumstances, the main claim of the
petitioners in these proceedings (except W.P.(C) 2318/2014) is untenable
and is, therefore, rejected.
14. In the light of the above discussion and analysis, the following
directions are issued:
(1) The claim for quashing of possession notices in these cases (except
W.P.(C) 2318/2014) are rejected as untenable.
(2) The respondent authorities are directed to complete the process of
verification of the petitioners' claims for alternative accommodation/plots
within reasonable time, and in any case, not later than 31st March, 2018;
(3) The process of verification shall be on the basis of documents made
available by the petitioners, in accordance with the policy or policies
applicable for relocation or allotment of alternative plots.
(4) The decision to allot or not to allot shall be communicated to the
petitioners. In case, some or all of them are held entitled, the allotment shall
be made within 2 months thereafter and possession of the plots/premises
according to the entitlement under the policy shall be handed over within
reasonable time.
(6) Wherever the land owners or any petitioners have applied for
enhancement of compensation, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
and wherever reference applications are not forwarded, the Land Acquisition
Collector shall, after verifying that applications were received, refer them to
the competent court. The issue of limitation, if any shall be considered by the
reference court, in accordance with law.
(7) Interim orders in all the petitions shall stand vacated. The respondents
are at liberty to take possession of the lands which are the subject matter of
all petitions except W.P.(C) 2318/2014.
In view of the above directions in the petitions, no separate orders are
called for in W.P.(C) 2318/2014.
15. All writ petitions except W.P.(C) 2318/2014 are dismissed but subject
to the above directions; W.P.(C) 2318/2014 is, for the same reasons,
allowed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
YOGESH KHANNA
(JUDGE)
MAY 08, 2017
