Delhi High Court
Jai Chand And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 1 August, 2018
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 1st August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9118/2017
JAI CHAND & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Vishal Maan and Mr Sumit Singh,
Advs
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi,
Advs for LAC/L&B
Mr Joginder Sukhija, Adv for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by
the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with
respect to land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1436/2 (3-12) and 1439 (4-16),
total measuring 7 Bighas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Malikpur
Kohi @ Rangpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') are
deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act') as neither the
actual physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor the
compensation in respect thereof has been paid to the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in this case, a
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') was issued on 27.06.1996 and a declaration under
Section 6 was made on 03.03.1997. Thereafter, an award bearing
no.03/1998-99 was passed on 19.02.1999.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to
para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC wherein it has been
categorically admitted that compensation has not been tendered to the
petitioners as the amount was not received in the account of the LAC from
the beneficiary department. Mr Maan, submits that in view of such a
categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit, one of the two ingredients
of Section 24(2) of the Act would admittedly stand satisfied. Resultantly, he
seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject
land are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the LAC also relies on para 7 of the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC, which we reproduce below:-
"7. That as regards possession, it is humbly submitted
that possession of the land comprised in khasra No. 1436/2(3-
12) and 1439(4-16) was taken on 31.12.2013 and handed over
to PWD through Land and Building Department. So far as
compensation is concerned, it is humbly submitted that the
compensation amount has not been received in the account of
LAC, New Delhi District. Thus, the compensation amount
could not be paid to the interested persons."
It is contended by the LAC that the physical possession of the subject
land has been taken but compensation in respect thereof has not been
tendered, to the recorded owners.
5. Learned counsel for the DDA submits that the DDA is not a necessary
party.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and taking into
account the categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by the
LAC that compensation has not been tendered and since the award having
been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of
the 2013 Act, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Act with regard to the subject land are
deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 01, 2018
SU
