Delhi High Court
Nem Chand Sharma & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 September, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 13, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 3446/2015 & C.M. 6157/2015 & C.M. 30776/2016
NEM CHAND SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Iti Sharma & Mr. Puneet Sharma,
Advocates
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for respondents
No.1 & 2-L&B/LAC
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for
respondent No.3-DDA
Ms. Rishika Arora & Mr. Savi Abbot, Advocate
in C.M. 30776/2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the suit lands i.e. Khasra
No.491/1(12-2), admeasuring 09 bighas and 02 biswas, in Revenue Estate
of Village Kilokri, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi are free from acquisition by
reason of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013').
2. In the present case, the facts are that notification under Section 4 of
the old Land Acquisition Act (of 1894) was issued on 23rd June, 1989; the
declaration under Section 6 of the old Act was issued on 22 nd June, 1990.
After issuing notice and considering the material, the Collector published
the award on 19th June, 1992 to determine compensation. Learned counsel
for the petitioner argues that neither the compensation was paid nor
possession of the suit lands was taken.
3. Respondents i.e. the Government of NCT of Delhi in the counter
affidavit states as follows:-
"7. That it is submitted that under the above said
award 12 bighas 02 biswa of Khasra no.491/1 was
acquired out of which possession of 11 bighas and 02
biswas was taken on 27.12.1990 and possession of
remaining 1 bigha was taken and handed over to the
beneficiary department on 09.02.2007. However,
compensation could not be paid as there was dispute."
4. It is therefore evident that even though with respect to possession,
the respondent- appropriate Government asserts that Section 24(2)
requirements are not satisfied, so far as payment of compensation is
concerned, the pleadings are equivocal and ambiguous. It is not clear as
to what compensation was paid and if so, who raised the dispute and
whether the provisions of Section 30 & 31 of the old Act were satisfied in
accordance with the prevailing procedure.
5. Third party- Mr. Mahender Saini and Mr. Rajesh Saini have sought
impleadment in these proceedings. They assert rival interests and claim to
be persons interested. They rely upon certain entries in the revenue
records in support of their claim. This claim is disputed by petitioners
who contend that revenue entries were specifically cancelled, as they
were made during subsistence of an interim order. This Court is of the
opinion that issue of right, title and entitlement of a party, cannot be gone
into in a writ petition. In case the third parties assert any claim, they can
have recourse to law; it is open to them to agitate in accordance with law.
So far as the claim of the present petitioners is concerned, a declaration of
law by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in Pune Municipal
Corporation and. Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014)
3 SCC 183 is forthright that irrespective of any impediment on account of
interim orders by Courts or such like situations, which prevent State
Authorities from taking over possession, if within 5 years period
stipulated by Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, either contingencies occur
i.e. neither compensation is paid nor is possession taken in respect of
lands, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.
6. Consequently, a declaration is issued to the effect that the suit
lands i.e. Khasra No.491/1(12-2), admeasuring 09 bighas and 02 biswas,
in Revenue Estate of Village Kilokri, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi, are free
from acquisition and the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of
Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013.
7. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. The pending
applications also stand disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
r
