Delhi High Court
Virender Kumar & Ors. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 16 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 16th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2915/2015
VIRENDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Trivedi, Adv.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda,
Adv. for R-1 & R-3
Mr. Sanjeev Sabarwal,
Standing Counsel for
DDA with Mr. Hem
Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Ten petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following
prayers:
"In view of the facts, circumstances and premises
submitted the humble Petitioners most respectfully pray
that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(a) Issue appropriate writ, direction or order to initiate
fresh proceedings to assess the loss and damages to the
Petitioner as the damages sustained by the Petitioners
at the time of Respondents taking possession of the
land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affected
the Petitioner, movable and immovable property and
his earnings spent on 10 built up houses;
(b) And further direction and order to the Respondents
to take action' in accordance with the New Act i.e
"THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT,
2013" in this matter in a limited time frame or at the
earliest.
(c) Call for all records of the Respondents to satisfy
and for quashing all the arbitrary action and
proceedings of the Respondents.
(d) and since Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act
1894 (central act 1 of 1894) has been made 5 years or
more prior to the commencement of the Act 2013 but
physical possession of the land has been taken but the
Compensation has not been paid the said proceedings
shall be deemed to have lapsed hence respondents be
directed to initiate the proceedings of land acquisition
afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(e) Pass such other order or further order(s) as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest
of justice under the present facts and circumstances."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the
compensation has not been paid to the present petitioners, the petitioners
would be entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with
respect to land / built up area stands lapsed. An alternate prayer has also
been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since after the
petitioners were dispossessed, the land has been put to use by DMRC,
the petitioners should be paid compensation as per the Act of 2013.
3. In this case, a notification under Section 4 was issued on 6th
April, 1964. Thereafter, Section 6 notification was issued and award was
made on 5th December, 1997 being Award No.3/97-98 for 584 bigha 14
biswas of Village Aali which was required for planned Development of
Delhi.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had purchased
the land from the erstwhile owners without being informed that the land
was subject matter of acquisition. Houses were constructed which were
demolished in the year 2009 by the respondent No.2 for construction of
Sarita Vihar Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. In the year 2010 the
petitioners made a representation for compensation, rehabilitation and
Resettlement at an area adjoining the area which was taken over.
Attention of the Court is drawn to the minutes of the meeting which was
attended by the then Chief Minister of Delhi and Local MLAs.
5. Counsel submits that till date no alternative land or compensation
has been received by the petitioners except for ex-gratia payment of Rs.
18,000/- per petitioner.
6. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the LAC submits that the
petitioners are neither the owners of the land nor can be termed as
interested persons for the reason that not only possession has been taken,
land put to use but even the compensation stands paid to the rightful
owners. Mr. Panda submits that in fact it seems that a fraud has been
played upon the petitioners. The land had changed hands and the person
who sold the land to the petitioners was not the owner, recorded owner or
even an interested person as land was sold in the year 1991 in this case to
the petitioner No.1 and other petitioners around the same period of time.
Reliance is placed by Mr. Panda on para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed
to show that compensation stands paid to Sh. Ram Chander s/o Kanaiya,
Sh. Ami Lal s/o Kanaiya, Sh. Hukmi s/o, Kanaiya, Sh. Lala S/o Kanaiya
& Sh. Chander s/o Kanaiya, each having 1/5 share a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was also forwarded at the Court
of ADJ.
7. Mr. Panda further submits that the petitioners would at best have
a complaint against the seller who duped them and no relief can be
granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act,
2013 (New Act).
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Para 7 of the counter-affidavit reads as under:
"7. That the possession of the land bearing Khasra
No. 153/1 (2-08), 153/2 (2-08) and 154 (3-00) was
taken over and handed over to DDA on 26.05.1998.
Further, possession of 1 bigha and 5 biswas in
Khasra no. 154 was taken over and handed over to
DMRC on 16.11.2009. As per the Naksha Mutazmin
the compensation was paid on 23.08.2005 with
respect to Kh. No 153/1 (2-8), Kh. No. 153/2 (28)
and 154 (4-05) to Sh. Ram Chander s/o Kanaiya, Sh.
Ami Lal s/o Kanaiya, Sh. Hukmi s/o, Kanaiya, Sh.
Lala S/o Kanaiya & Sh. Chander s/o Kanaiya, each
having 1/5 share. It is also pertinent to mention here
that reference under Section 18 of LA Act has also
been forwarded to the Court of ADJ."
10. Reading of the counter-affidavit would show that compensation
stands paid on 23rd August, 2005 to the owners as per the Naksha
Mutazmin. It may be noted that their names also do not find mentioned
in the award, the petitioners never filed any objection after Section 4 or
Section 6 notification. No documents have been placed on record to
show that the name of the petitioners was entered in any record of the
Government Register.
11. Resultantly, the relief so claimed and pressed before this Court
today cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage
submits that leave should be granted to the petitioners to seek such
remedy as available in accordance with law against sellers, who have
duped the petitioners' and deprived them of hard earned money. Liberty
is also sought to approach the Government to seek alternate land for
rehabilitation as was claimed earlier and reflected in the minutes of the
meeting. While we find no merit in the writ petition, the same is
dismissed. It would be open for the petitioners to seek such relief against
such person as available in accordance with law.
12. The writ petition is dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
NOVEMBER 16, 2017/aky
