Delhi High Court
Raj Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 October, 2017
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 24th October, 2017
+ W.P. (C.) No.1910/2015
RAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ankit Jain with Mr. Sarvesh Rai,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.
Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
L&B/LAC.
Ms. Slomita Rai, Advocate for Mr.
Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate for
respondent no.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be 1/6th owner of the
land situated in Khasra Nos.116(23/2 (3-10), 24 (4-16), 25(4-04),
126/3/2 (3-10), 4(4-16), 5(4-16), 8(4-16), 9/2 (2-16), 12(4-12), 13(4-
12), 14(4-12), 16(4-16), 17(4-16), 18(4-16), 19(4-16), 20(4-16),
126/21 (4-16), 22(4-16), 23(4-16), 24/1(3-16), 25/1(3-08), 127/16(4-
16), 17/2(3-16), 24(4-16) 25 (4-16), 142/4 (4-12), 5(4-12), 6(4-16),
7(4-16), 155/1/1 (3-03), 2(4-08), 3(4-05) & 10(4-03) in the Revenue
Estate of Village Bawana, Delhi which was acquired by virtue of
Notification issued under Section 4 bearing No.F.10(39)/96/L&B/LA
dated 15.11.1996 and declaration under Section 6 bearing
No.F.10(39)/96/L&B/LA dated 21.11.1996 and Award bearing
No.1/97-98 dated 04.07.1997.
2. It is claimed that the respondents no.4 and 5 also had 1/12th share each
in the aforesaid piece of land(hereinafter referred to as 'the said land').
3. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said land
was acquired on 15.11.1996 and an Award bearing no.1/97-98 was
passed on 04.07.1997. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Land
Acquisition Collector had granted compensation of Rs.1,86,500/- per
bigha for Block 'A' lands, Rs.1,61,500/- per bigha for Block 'B'
lands. Mr. Jain further points out that certain reference under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act was decided in respect of the land
acquired by the same award and enhanced compensation of
Rs.2,41,452/- per bigha for Block 'A' lands and Rs.2,01,452/- per
bigha for Block 'B' lands were awarded. It is also pointed out that the
said judgments were challenged before this Court by way of various
land acquisition appeals and decided on 11.05.2006. It is contended
that the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.12,33,879/-, while the
respondents no.4 and 5 were paid Rs.28,24,771.77 and
Rs.34,91,234.89 respectively in respect of the acquisition of their land
holdings in terms of the same Award.
4. Mr. Jain further submits that under the scheme of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, it is imperative that equal holders of land should get equal
compensation in regard to acquisition of their land holdings.
However, in the present case the petitioner has been given
compensation which is much less than the compensation given to
respondents no.4 and 5 herein in spite of the fact that the petitioner on
the one hand and respondents no.4 and 5 collectively on the other hand
had 1/6th share each in the acquired land.
5. It is also contended by Mr. Jain that the aforesaid facts clearly show
that the officials of respondents no.1 to 3 have either paid excess
compensation to respondents no.4 and 5 or have not paid the
compensation due and payable to the petitioner herein. It is contended
that the officials of the respondents no.1 to 3 have not performed their
duty as required by them as per law. It is contended that the said
action or inaction is deliberate on the part of the officials of
respondents no.1 to 3.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the said
circumstances, it is imperative that the respondents no.1 to 3 should
fix responsibility as to the officers who were responsible for the said
action or inaction in relation to payment of correct compensation
amount. It is contended that respondents no.1 to 3 should be directed
to take appropriate action against the said erring officials after fixing
responsibility.
7. Counsel for the petitioner also complains that the petitioner has
addressed various communications to various authorities in relation to
the aforesaid wrongdoing, but to no avail.
8. Counsel for the LAC submits that the allegations made and
contentions raised in the present writ petition are baseless and
unfounded. Counsel further contends that the present petition is
premature. It is further pointed out that an inquiry has been instituted
and the final report is awaited.
9. At this stage, Mr. Jain, counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner would be satisfied in case a direction is issued to fix the time
frame for completion of the inquiry and further the respondents be
directed to supply a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner.
10. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The stand taken
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fair.
11. Accordingly, we direct the LAC to conclude the inquiry within a
period of four months and supply a copy of the report to the petitioner
at the address mentioned in the writ petition upon acknowledgement.
Mr. Jain submits that in case he is dissatisfied with the report, he
would seek appropriate remedy as available to him in accordance with
law.
12. With the above agreed terms, the present writ petition stands disposed
of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2017
pst
