Delhi High Court
Appejay House Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 2018
$~51, 52 & 53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 3rd August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9988/2015
STEELCRETE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 10285/2015
APEEJAY PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 9992/2015
APPEJAY HOUSE PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Present : Mr. Randhir Jain and Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocates for
petitioners in all items.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate for L&B/LAC alongwith Mr. Gopal Banik, DEO,
LAC (South-East) in all items.
Mr. Rohit Jain & Ms. Madhu Sweta, Advocates for R-2/NHAI
in all items.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Three identical writ petitions have been instituted by the petitioners
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking identical
directions from this Court, which we reproduce below :
"(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ order or direction thereby directing the respondent
no.1 and 2 to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings for the
demarcated land of the petitioner, since the land is being
used by the respondent no.1 & 2.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ order or direction thereby directing the respondent
no.1 and 2 to produce all relevant record in respect to the
acquisition of land of the petitioner before the respondent
no.3 and 4;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ order or direction thereby directing the respondent
no.3 and 4 to examine the claim of the petitioner, which
they shall be refiling after the acquisition, after going
through the relevant records produced by respondent no.1
and 2 and thereafter award the compensation as per law;"
2. These matters have been heard separately but are being decided by a
common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P.(C) 10285/2015 are being
noticed for disposal of the present writ petitions.
4. The petitioners have raised a building in three parts viz. basement, first
floor and second floor on the property as detailed below :
S.No. Property No. W.P.(C)
1. B-II/40, Mohan Cooperative 9988/2015
Industrial Estate, New Delhi
2. B-II/41, Mohan Cooperative 10285/2015
Industrial Estate, New Delhi
3. B-II/42, Mohan Cooperative 9992/2015
Industrial Estate, New Delhi
5. It is the case of the petitioners that at the instance of Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation part of their land was acquired in the year 2007 under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners challenged the acquisition
proceedings by filing writ petitions being W.P. (C) 235/2010,
234/2010 & 233/2010. The NHAI has admitted in their counter
affidavit that the land was acquired for construction of service road,
footpath and drainage. The writ petitions being W.P. (C) 233/2010 and
W.P. (C) 234/2010 were dismissed by a common order dated
16.04.2010 passed by this Court, which reads as under:
"We are now informed that the Special Leave Petition
being SLP (Civil) No.3469/2009 filed against the
decision of this court in Lal Mani Jain Vs. Union of
India; 2009 (10)AD (Delhi) 1 has been dismissed by the
Supreme Court on 5.4.2010. It was already stated by
learned counsel for the petitioners on 18.2.2010 that the
present cases are fully covered by that decision in Lal
Mani Jain's case and thus the challenge to that extent
does not survive. The only additional plea which was
stated to be raised, and as recorded on 18.2.2010, was
that no notice had been served on the petitioners herein
under Section 3(E)(1) of the National Highways Act,
1956. Learned counsel for the respondent states that to
obviate any difficulty in this behalf notices have
now been served in March, 2010 giving the statutory
period before taking possession.
Petitioners can also avail of the benefit of the statutory
period. No further orders are required in these petitions.
The petitions accordingly stand dismissed with the
aforesaid observations."
6. We are also informed that identical placed persons had also filed a
SLP, which was dismissed. The petitioners had also filed separate writ
petition being W.P. (C) 6294/2012 to challenge the notice.
7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners have
prayed for issuance of fresh acquisition proceedings but at this stage,
the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondents
to release the compensation payable to them as per the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as the '2013
Act').
8. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners would not be
entitled to any compensation, as the compensation was offered to the
petitioners but they did not come forward to accept the same.
Additionally, counsel for NHAI submits that the compensation has
been determined and paid to the LAC in terms of the NHAI Act and it
is open for the petitioners to approach the office of LAC and claim the
same in accordance with law.
9. At this stage, Mr. Randhir Jain, counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners would approach the office of LAC for release of
compensation and in case, petitioners are aggrieved by any order so
passed, they would assail the same in accordance with law.
10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matters, it would
be open for the petitioners to approach the office of the LAC to seek
release of compensation. If the petitioners approach the respondents,
we hope that the request of the petitioners would be considered
expeditiously.
11. In above terms, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 03, 2018/ck
