Delhi High Court
Dinesh Kumar & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 April, 2018
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 12th April, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 4736/2015
DINESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Harpreet
Singh, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Sidharth
Rathore, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Komal Sorout and Ms.
Mrinalini Sharma, Advocates for
DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision rendered in the
case of N.K.Bakshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)
8989/2014. It is stated that the acquisition made through the
notification published on 26.04.2013 is contrary to The Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The
petitioners seek a direction to quash the said notification dated
26.04.2013 and consequential direction that the respondents be
directed/restricted from dispossessing the petitioners from the land i.e.
Khasra Nos.246, 260 and 271 falling in the revenue estate of Village
Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject
land').
2. Brief facts required to be noticed for the disposal of the present writ
petition are that a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 28.04.1995, followed
by a Section 6 declaration on 26.04.1996, which sought to acquire the
land for the purpose of Phase-IV, Rohini Residential Scheme. The
said notification also invoked the urgency clause of Section 17(4) of
the Act.
3. Two petitions i.e. W.P.(C)3938/1996 and W.P.(C) 5525/2000 were
filed by the petitioners for de-notification and regularization of their
lands. The High Court rejected the petition, however, the Supreme
Court quashed the Notification dated 28.04.1995 by an order dated
21.03.2012. The court granted liberty to the competent authority to
notify objections under Section 5(A) of the Act pursuant to the
Notification of 28.04.1995. The appropriate government on
26.04.2013 issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act after
considering the objections filed before it.
4. Declaration and subsequent proceedings became the subject matter of
challenge in further fresh writ petitions that were decided by a
common judgment reported in Sunil Goel vs.State & Ors, 211 (2014)
DLT 382. The court allowed the petitions holding that the acquisitions
had lapsed by virtue of proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. In the case
of N.K.Bakshi (supra), like in the present case, the issue was whether
Khasra Nos.246, 260 and 271were covered by the declaration in the
case of Sunil Goel (supra). The court held that the lands were so
covered and that the declaration under Section 6(1) could not be issued
since the time had lapsed and the entire acquisition, therefore, failed.
The court on that occasion observed as below:
"The purported proviso of Section 6(1) of the Act 1894 is
clearly well settled. The fact that more than one year period
has lapsed between the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act
establishes that the entirety of the acquisition has lapsed.
This plan has been emphasized and repeated time and again
by several judgments in the last 15 years. Officially, the
petitioners were entitled to the relief because the Supreme
Court quashed the dispensing of Section 5(A) of the Act by
order dated 21.03.2012. It is clear that the proceedings
under Section 6 had to be necessarily issued within a year of
that date i.e. on or before 20.03.2013. However, in the
present case notification was issued on 26.04.2013. In view
of the above, the petitioners' non-inclusion as petitioner(s)
by name before the Supreme Court cannot disentitle them to
the relief. This is because the notification now challenged
undoubtedly contains the specific reference to Khasra
No.261,264 and 265 which belongs to the petitioners. Had
the position been otherwise, there is no need for the
respondent to have included the petitioner's land in
notification under Section 6 of the Act. In fact in that case,
they would have been within their right to acquire the lands
on the basis of Urgency clause earlier. It is not their case
that compensation was deposited earlier in accordance with
the law or that the possession was taken over on the basis of
a valid acquisition.
In these circumstances, the respondent's objections are
not sustainable and the writ succeeds and consequential
direction is issued. Therefore, the acquisition of the suit land
i.e. land in Khasra No.261, 264 and 265 falling in the
revenue estate of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi is
deemed to have lapsed. The writ petition is allowed.
5. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the LAC disputes the ownership of
the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners are claiming
ownership based on the General Power of Attorney and
Agreement to Sell. As far as the question relating to
compensation is concerned, counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners would accept the same. As far as the
objection regarding ownership/title is concerned, counsel
submits that the present petition may be allowed, however the
question with regard to the title may be kept open as per the
view expressed by this Court in the case of Parshotam Joshi vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) 4255/2016 decided on
8th November, 2017, wherein a decision of the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Solanki v. Delhi
Development Authority and Ors. W.P.(C) 1999/2015 decided on
24th January, 2017 so also a subsequent decision of this Court in
the case of Dhannu v. Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
Ors. W.P.(C) 3158/2015 decided on 16th November, 2017 were
followed. It is ordered accordingly.
6. This petition is clearly covered by the relief clause, that was
subject matter of W.P.(C) 3938/1996 which was eventually
allowed by the Supreme Court in the common judgment and
order dated 21.03.2012. In these circumstances, the Court hereby
declares that the acquisition of the subject land of Khasra
Nos.246, 260 and 271 falling in the revenue estate of Village
Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of
proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act.
7. The writ petition is allowed.
CM.APPL 8573/2015
8. The application also stand disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
APRIL 12, 2018
pst
