Delhi High Court
Kuldeep Rana vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 September, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07.09.2017
+ W.P.(C) 11340/2015, C.M. APPL.29785/2015
KULDEEP RANA ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Sh. Harpreet Singh
and Sh. M.C. Verma, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for UOI.
Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Advocate.
Sh. Arjun Pant, Advocate, for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The petitioner in these proceedings seeks quashing of notifications
acquiring 1 bigha in Khasra No.57//2018 , situated in Pul Pehladpur. It is
stated that the acquisition of the said lands (hereafter "suit lands") lapsed
by reason of operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter "2013 Act").
2. The facts of the case are that on 27.10.1999, a notification under
Section 4 of the erstwhile (now repealed) Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereafter "old Act") was issued proposing to acquire a large tract of
land, including the suit lands. A declaration under Section 6 of the old
Act followed and was published on 03.04.2000. It is not in dispute that
the award, assessing the suit lands to compensation, was made in 2000.
The petitioner, claiming to be in possession of the suit lands since 1989,
argues that since his lawful possession was not disturbed, with the
enactment of the 2013 Act, the acquisition lapsed, because possession
was not taken any time in 5 years before commencement of the said Act.
3. The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development
Authority (DDA) resist these proceedings. Both argue that possession of
the acquired lands-including suit lands was taken; it is also stated that the
compensation was paid to, and collected by the recorded owner.
4. The counter-affidavit by the Government of NCT of Delhi,
pertinently states as follows:
"6. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
as the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in his
individual name on the basis of GPA which writ petition
should otherwise have been maintained only in the name
of the recorded owner as the „Agreement to Sell‟ does not
confer any right, title, or interest to the petitioner as no
sale deed has follows in pursuance to the said „Agreement
to Sell‟.
7. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as
after completing the acquisition related requirements
under the law, the answering respondent has duly taken
the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land
falling in khasra number 57/18 (1-00) as reflected in the
name of Shyam Sunder Gupta on 9.5.2000 and the said
recorded owner namely Mr.Shyam Sunder Gupta has also
received the compensation of Rs.4,27,365/- against the
said land vide cheque number 540190 on 27.8.2002. Thus
having accepted the compensation after the actual
possession was duly taken by the Government, there
remains nothing in the present writ petition which is to be
adjudicated upon by the Hon‟ble Court and the same
deserves dismissal.
8. That it is submitted that the lands of village Prehlad Pur
Bangar were notified vide Notification under Section 4 &
17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 27.10.1999
which was followed by the Notification under Section 6 of
the Act dated 3.4.2000 as the purpose of the acquisition
was Rohini Residential Scheme, Phase IV and V. The
Award was also passed vide Award No.14/2002-03 dated
8.7.2002 and the actual physical vacant possession was
also taken on 9.5.2000 in pursuance of the urgency clause
and also the compensation was duly paid to its recorded
owner in the year 2002 vide cheque number, stated
supra."
5. The judgments of the Supreme Court clarify that if either
compensation is not paid or possession not taken, during the stipulated
time period, the acquisition under the old Act lapses, by reason of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. In the present case, both events occurred
long before the 2013 Act came into force. The petitioner's slender hope
of success is a claim to ownership. But that is based not on title, or valid
inter vires conveyance, but rather, on an unregistered agreement to sell,
unregistered power of attorney, and a will (all of 1989 vintage). As
against this, his conceded vendor, the recorded owner, collected
compensation in 2002; vacant possession of land had been taken on
09.5.2000, by invoking the urgency clause under the old Act. There is no
denial to these factual averments by the respondents.
6. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the petition. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SEPTEMBER 07, 2017 SUNIL GAUR, J
