Delhi High Court
Discover India Tour (P) Ltd & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 November, 2017
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 14th November, 2017
+ W.P. (C.) No.2912/2016
DISCOVER INDIA TOUR (P) LTD & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Prateek Kohli and Ms. Richa
Oberoi, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju
Gupta, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Ruchika Rathi, Advocate
for L&B/LAC.
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Counter affidavit has not been filed by the LAC. Copy of the counter
affidavit has been handed over in Court. The same is taken on record.
2. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is set down
for final hearing and disposal.
3. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
by the petitioners. The petitioners claim that the acquisition
proceedings pertaining to land measuring 2453 sq. yards forming part
of Khasra nos. 657 and 658 respectively situated in the revenue estate
of village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as „subject land‟) has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as „Act‟).
4. The petitioners claim to be the subsequent purchasers of the land in
question. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the writ
petitions arising out of the same Award, have been allowed by orders
dated 8th August, 2017 in the case of Asha Jain & Anr v. Union of
India & Ors, W.P.(C) No. 2987/2016. This decision was followed in
the case of Jasjeet Singh Makhija & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors,
W.P.(C) No. 2920/2016 and Suman Chhabra v. Union of India &
Ors., W.P.(C) No. 2995/2016 dated 21 st September, 2017. Counsel
for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the counter
affidavit filed by the LAC, as per which it is admitted that the physical
possession of the land in question has not been taken over and further
it could not be ascertained whether compensation has been paid or not.
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit read as under:
"8. That in the present case, the possession of the land in
question was not taken over. The statement "A" of the
Award No.12/87-88 is not traceable. An NCR has also
been lodged with the P.S. Neb Sarai bearing LR. No. :
0063/2017 dated 07/02/2017. However as per the
Revenue Deposit Register, the total amount of
Rs.8,10,28,938/- of Award no. 12/87-88 was deposited
in R.D. but the same was later withdrawn vide R.V.
No.436 dated 07.05.1993 for the Award No.1/93-94
Village Kakrola, Delhi as per Dy. Secy.(L&B) Letter
No.F.19/(145/88-89/L&B/F.A-20392dated 07.07.1992.
The compensation as per the Naksha Muntzamin are as
under but there is no mention in the Naksha
Muntzamin as to whether it was paid or not:
S.No. Name Amount
1. M/s Lakhmi Chand Rs.294624.60
2. M/s Lakhmi Chand Rs.303445.70
3. M/s Lakhmi Chand Rs.1489000.99
4. M/s Laxmi Chand Rs.1466066.14
9. That it is submitted that the physical possession of the
lands under reference could not be taken. It is further
submitted that the status of the compensation of the
subject land could not be ascertained as the „Statement
A‟ is untraceable and the answering respondent has
already issued a Circular dated 02.03.2016 to re-locate
the same. Thus, in the absence of the Statement A, the
status of payment of compensation could not be
ascertained."
5. In Asha Jain & Anr. (supra), an identical claim for relief that
the lands were free from acquisition was examined and the
following findings were recorded:
"7. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the
petitioners have no locus to seek declaration as the suit land
was purchased by them on the basis of General Power of
Attorney and Agreement to Sell. The submission is devoid
of merits. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that
M/s.Laxmichand Bhagaji Limited was the recorded owner
of the suit land and it was sold to the petitioners.
8. Record reveals that originally the land forming part of
Khasra No. 675 was recorded in the name of M/s.
Laxmichand Bhagaji Limited - a non-banking company.
Subsequently, several winding up petitions were filed
against it in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
including company petition No. 50/1990, where the official
liquidator was appointed. Scheme of Arrangement or
Compromise between the company and its depositors was
accepted, approved and sanctioned by the Bombay High
Court vide its orders dated 24.10.1991 and 28.11.1991. In
Company Application No. 298/2001 in Company Petition
No. 76/1991, permission was sought to sell the entire land in
possession of the company. The Bombay High Court vide
its order dated 10.08.2001 granted permission for the sale of
the land after receipt of full consideration. Suman Chabbra
sole proprietor of M/s. Sukhshanti Associates purchased the
suit land and Agreement to Sell dated 02.01.2004 was
executed in favour of M/s. Sukhshanti Associates. In terms
of the said agreement, M/s. Sukhshanti Associate was
authorized to make payment of the consideration and the
„committee‟ was to execute Agreement to Sell along with
irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of M/s.
Sukhshanti Associates and / its nominee. The petitioners
further averred that pursuant to the agreement dated
02.01.2004, the committee executed a separate Agreement
to Sell dated 09.05.2005 in favour of the petitioner - Asha
Jain wherein Suman Chhabra had made the confirming
party. Along with the agreement dated 09.05.2005, General
Power of Attorney was executed in her favour and
possession certificate was also issued qua the land
measuring 93 sq.yds. in Khasra No.675 situated in the
village Neb Sarai.
9. The petitioners further aver that the land forming part of
Khasra No. 653 (min) was recorded in the name of Chandro
Devi (1/3rd in 838 sq.yds.), S.B.Chaudhary (400 sq.yds.),
Balwan Singh, Baljeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh (320
sq.yds. collectively). The said land measuring 800 sq.yds.
was purchased by Suman Chhabra vide Agreement to Sell
dated 05.06.2000, 07.03.2005 and 05.06.2005, respectively.
The same has been transferred in favour of the petitioners
vide registered General Power of Attorney dated 09.05.2005
and Agreement to Sell in favour of the petitioner No.1
alongwith possession certificate. These facts have not been
controverted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit.
Apparently, petitioners are the "persons interested‟ to claim
compensation which was never offered or tendered to them.
10. It is relevant to note that in similar circumstances in
W.P.(C) 2988/2016 & 2921/2016, decided on 01.08.2017,
similar relief was granted to the petitioners therein.
11. As the respondents have not denied that the
compensation of the suit lands has not been paid and its
possession has not been taken, the petitioners are entitled to
the declaration sought. Accordingly, it is held that
acquisition of suit land in Khasra No.653 and 675
admeasuring 800 sq.yds. and 93 sq.yds. respectively vide
award No.12/87-88 dated 20.05.1987 is deemed to have
lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act."
6. Having regard to the fact that the LAC has admitted that
possession of the suit land was not taken over and
compensation not paid, we are of the view that the petitioners
are entitled to a declaration to the extent that the acquisition
proceedings stand lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act.
It is so declared.
7. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. No costs.
CM.APPL 12170/2016 (stay)
8. Interim order dated 06.04.2016 is confirmed.
9. The application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
NOVEMBER 14, 2017
pst
