Delhi High Court
Devender Kumar And Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 31 October, 2017
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 31st October, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10983/2016
DEVENDER KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Vishal Maan, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Siddarth Panda, Standing Counsel
for LAC/L&B.
Mr.Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel
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. Counter affidavit has been handed
over in Court by counsel appearing for LAC. Copy has been supplied
to counsel for the petitioner.
2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final
hearing and disposal.
3. The petitioner seeks a declaration to the extent that the proceedings in
respect of land measuring 25 bighas and 2 biswas comprised in Khasra
Nos.234 (4-16), 235 (4-16), 236(4-16), 272 (4-16), 290 (4-4) and 291/2
(1-14) situated in the Revenue Estate of village Kotla Mahi Giran, New
Delhi and all subsequent proceedings to have lapsed in view of 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').
4. Mr.Maan submits that a notification under Section 4 was issued with
respect to the subject land on 06.04.1964 bearing no.F-4 (9)/6-L&H
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'old
Act'). On 07.12.1966, a notification under Section 6 of the old Act was
issued. On 19.09.1986, an Award bearing no.205/1986-87 was made
by respondent no.2. It is the case of the parties that physical possession
of the land in question was taken by the respondents and put to use by
the DDA to beneficiaries for construction of commercial buildings. The
grievance of the petitioners is that despite the possession having been
taken the compensation was not released in favour of the petitioners.
Learned counsel relies on Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., 2014 3 SCC 183 and prays that
a declaration be issued that the acquisition stands lapsed. However, he
submits that since the land has been put to use, he has instructions only
to press for compensation.
5. We have examined the counter affidavit which has been handed over in
Court and also heard the learned counsels for the respondents. Para 6 of
the counter affidavit reads as under:
"6. That the land in question i.e. Khasra No.234(4-
16), 235 (4-16), 236 (4-16), 272 (4-16), 290 (4-4) and 291/2
(1-14) total ad-measuring 25 bighas 2 biswas situated at the
revenue estate of village Kotla Maigrain, New Delhi was
notified under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act on
06.04.1964 followed by declaration under section 6 of Land
Acquisition Act on 07.12.1966 for Planned Development of
Delhi. In pursuance of said notification, notices under
section 9 & 10 as provided under the Act, were issued to the
interested persons, inviting the claims from all the
interested persons and claims were also filed by the
interested persons. The than Land Acquisition Collector
passed Award No.205/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 after
considering the claims of the claimants. Further, possession
of the above mentioned land were taken over on 04.12.86,
12.12.96 & 17.07.1987 and handed over to the beneficiary
department. Compensation was not paid due to dispute.
6. It is not in dispute that not only possession of the subject land has been
taken but the same has also been put to use. The stand of the LAC is
that the compensation could not be paid due to the dispute. No
supporting document has been filed in support of the submission. No
deposit has been made in the referral court. Accordingly, it cannot be
held that the compensation was tendered to the petitioners. It would be
useful to refer to the observations made in para 17 in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation (supra) wherein it has been held that the
compensation is to be deposited in the referral court. The observations
of the Supreme Court of India in Para 17 in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) is reproduced as under:
"17. While enacting Section 24(2), Parliament definitely
had in its view Section 31 of the 1894 Act. From that one
thing is clear that it did not intend to equate the word
"paid" to "offered" or "tendered". But at the same time,
we do not think that by use of the word "paid", Parliament
intended receipt of compensation by the
landowners/persons interested. In our view, it is not
appropriate to give a literal construction to the expression
"paid" used in this sub-section (sub-section (2) of Section
24). If a literal construction were to be given, then it would
amount to ignoring procedure, mode and manner of deposit
provided in Section 31(2)of the 1894 Act in the event of
happening of any of the contingencies contemplated therein
which may prevent the Collector from making actual
payment of compensation. We are of the view, therefore,
that for the purposes of Section 24(2), the compensation
shall be regarded as "paid" if the compensation has been
offered to the person interested and such compensation has
been deposited in the court where reference under Section
18 can be made on happening of any of the contingencies
contemplated under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. In other
words, the compensation may be said to have been "paid"
within the meaning of Section 24(2) when the Collector (or
for that matter Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged his
obligation and deposited the amount of compensation in
court and made that amount available to the interested
person to be dealt with as provided in Sections 32 and 33."
7. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed. The
claim of the petitioners is restricted to grant of compensation under the
New Act. We direct that the compensation be paid to the record owners
in terms of 2013 Act within a period of one year.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
OCTOBER 31, 2017
rb
