Delhi High Court
Jai Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 October, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 31st October, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 12002/2015
JAI SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Richa Oberoi and Mr. Prateek
Kohli, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Standing Counsel with
Ms. Rashi Singhal, Adv. for R1.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Raunak Singh, Adv. for R3.
MR. O.P. Saxena, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a writ declaring
the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land of the petitioners
forming part of Khasra No. 369 (0-04) and 375 (0-11) admeasuring 15 Biswas
situated in Village Neb Sarai, New Delhi as deemed to have been lapsed in
view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. Admittedly in this case, Section 4 Notification was issued for a public
purpose, namely for the Planned Development of Delhi on 5th November,
1980. Section 6 Declaration was issued on 21st May, 1985 and thereafter
Award was made on 20th May, 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that although the possession of the land in question was taken, but no
compensation has been paid till date. She has also drawn the attention of the
Court to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by the LAC. She contends
that based on the counter-affidavit, it is clear that no compensation has been
paid to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the
compensation has not been paid, present case is fully covered by the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court of India in present case is covered Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors.,
reported at 2014 3 SCC 183.
2. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent L&B/LAC submits that possession of the subject land was taken
as far as back as on 5th September, 2005. However the status of the
compensation could not be ascertained as Statement 'A' is not available in the
office. Additionally there is no entry in the Naksha Muntazamin as to whether
any payment was made to the petitioners or not.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Para 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent LAC reads as
under:
"That it is submitted that the lands of Village Neb Sarai
were notified vide Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 5.11.1980,
declaration u/s 6 was issued on 21.05.1985. The Award
was also passed vide Award No. 12/87-88 dated
20.05.1987 and the actual vacant physical possession of
the subject land falling in Khasra numbers 369 (0-04) &
375 (0-11) total 15 biswas was duly taken on 5.09.2005
on the spot by preparing possession proceedings and
handed over to the DDA on the spot. The status of
compensation could not be ascertained as statement „A‟
is not available and efforts are being put to search the
same. There is no entry in the Naksha Muntazamin as
to whether any payment was made to the petitioners or
not."
5. Reading of the counter-affidavit clearly shows that compensation has
not been paid to the petitioners. Moreover, there is no entry in the Naksha
Muntazamin to show as to whether any payment was made to the petitioners.
In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at 2014 3 SCC 183, the Supreme Court of
India in paras 14 and 20 held as under:
"14. Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the
Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to tender
payment of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto
according to award. It further mandates the Collector to make
payment of compensation to them unless prevented by one of the
contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2). The
contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2) are: (i) the persons
interested entitled to compensation do not consent to receive it
(ii) there is no person competent to alienate the land and (iii)
there is dispute as to the title to receive compensation or as to
the apportionment of it. If due to any of the contingencies
contemplated in Section 31(2), the Collector is prevented from
making payment of compensation to the persons interested who
are entitled to compensation, then the Collector is required to
deposit the compensation in the court to which reference under
Section 18 may be made.
20. From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to
the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the
2013 Act. It is also admitted position that compensation so
awarded has neither been paid to the landowners/persons
interested nor deposited in the court. The deposit of
compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail
and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the
landowners/persons interested. We have, therefore, no
hesitation in holding that the subject land acquisition
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act."
6. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties and
the averments made in Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, 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. Sshiv 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) Giri Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors;
W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
8. In view of the discussion above, the petitioners are entitled to a
declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to respect of the land
of the petitioners forming part of Khasra No. 369 (0-04) and 375 (0-11)
admeasuring 15 Biswas situated in Village Neb Sarai, New Delhi initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are deemed to have lapsed. It is
ordered accordingly.
CM No. 31845/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
OCTOBER 31, 2017/jg
