Delhi High Court
Dunger Singh Tokas & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 November, 2017
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 07th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 6543/2016
DUNGER SINGH TOKAS & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Abhimanyu Singh Khatri, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Mrinalini Sen with Ms.Kritika
Gupta, Advs. for DDA.
Mr.Satyendra Kumar, SCGC for R-1.
Mr.Amresh Mathur with Mr.Sumit
Rajput, Advs. for R-2.
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Jha & Mr. Kushal Raj Tater,
Advs. for L&B/LAC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present writ petition is set
down for final hearing and disposal.
2. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, the petitioners seek a direction to declare the acquisition proceedings
with respect to the land of the petitioner measuring 2 bighas comprised in
Khasra no.825/2/31 (87-05), situated in the revenue estate of village
Mohammadpur, Munirka, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject
land') to have lapsed, in view Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Re-Settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'New Act'), as neither
compensation has been paid nor possession has been taken over.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case, two
notifications under sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act') were issued on 24.10.1961 and
16.12.1965 respectively. An award was made on 24.01.1967.
4. Notice was issued in the matter. Counter affidavit has been filed by
LAC.
5. Learned counsel for the LAC submits that possession could not be
taken over with respect to the part of the land on account of the area being
built up.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to
para 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of LAC to show that the
compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. Para 9 of counter affidavit
filed by LAC reads as under:-
"9. That as regards possession, it is humbly submitted as per
the possession proceedings report, possession of the land in
question i.e. 2 bigha land of petitioners comprised in khasra
nos.825/2/31 (87-05) was taken on 31.05.1967 and 14.06.1972.
So far as compensation, is concerned, it is humbly submitted
that as per statement "A" compensation is assessed in the name
of Mahipat S/o Shiv Dyal at entry 140 but payment of
compensation has not been mentioned anywhere in front of this
entry. Record is also old and in torn condition."
7. Learned counsel for the LAC submits that the available records are in
a torn condition. However, learned counsel submits that the compensation
was assessed, but whether it has been paid or not it is nowhere mentioned in
the record.
8. Having regard to the fact that area in question was built up and
possession could not be taken and also the fact that LAC could not be able to
show that compensation has been paid, we are of the considered view that
the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the New Act
as has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India and this Court in the
following cases stand satisfied:
(1) Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at 2014 3 SCC 183;
(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors., reported at
(2014) 6 SCC 564;
(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided
on 10.09.2014;
(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others,
W.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court;
and
(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors;
W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
9. In view of the discussion above, the award having been announced
more than five years prior to the commencement of the New Act and, as
neither the possession has been taken nor compensation paid, the petitioner
is entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the subject land are
deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
10. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
CM No.26828/2016
11. Interim order dated 29.07.2016 is confirmed.
12. The application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
NOVEMBER 07, 2017/ck
