Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors. on 6 August, 2018
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 6th August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8080/2015
RAKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv
versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
LAC/L&B with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan and Ms. Akshita
Manocha, Advocates for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is set down
for final hearing and disposal.
2. The petitioner seeks quashing of notification No. 10(29)/96/L&B/LA
11394 dated 27.10.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The
subject matter of this writ petition is land comprised in Khasra
No.53/11 (10 Biswas) and Khasra No. 53/12 (11 Biswas), total land
measuring 1055 Sq. yards situated at Village Prehaldpur Bangar,
Delhi 110042.
3. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of
this writ petition are that a Section 4 notification of the Act was issued
on 27.10.1999 followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act
issued on 03.04.2000. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notifications,
similarly situated land owners had filed a writ petition in Delhi High
Court being W. P. (C) 2532/2000 titled as "Darshan Singh & Ors. Vs.
Lt. Governor & Ors.".
4. It is also pointed out that vide order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the
Delhi High Court, the case of the land owners was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the Delhi High
Court various similarly situated land owners approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide CA Nos. 3017-3018/2012 and various other
connected matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued notice and
granted interim stay of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi on
17.09.2007. By an order dated 21.03.2012, the Supreme Court was
pleased to quash the declaration under Section 17 of the Act and the
declaration dated 03.04.2000 issued under Section 6 of the Act.
5. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the LAC issued a general public notice thereby
inviting objections under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioner
approached the LAC and filed objections in his individual capacity
and also through the Residents Welfare Association.
6. A fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on
20.03.2013 after a lapse of the statutory period of one year. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the possession of the
land in question was taken nor the compensation has been paid. He
further submits that since the fresh Section 6 notification was made
after a lapse of more than one year, the case of the petitioner would be
covered by the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in W. P. (C) 3049/2013 titled as Sunil Goel & Others Vs. The
State and Others decided on 29.04.2014 when batch of cases were
decided. Reliance is placed on para 18 of the judgment, which is
reproduced as under :
18. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners ought to be accepted. This is so because
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Padmasundara Rao (supra) covers the present case
on all fours. The very issue before the Supreme Court,
as pointed out by us earlier, was - whether, after the
quashing of a declaration under Section 6 of the said
Act, a fresh period of one year would be available to
the State Government to issue another declaration
under Section 6. This question has been answered by
the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
Padmasundara Rao (supra) in the negative. In other
words, when a Section 6 declaration is quashed, it
does not give a fresh period of one year to the
Government to issue another Section 6 declaration.
The Section 6 declaration, after such quashing, if at
all, can be issued only during the balance period.
7. It is further pointed out that the case of Sunil Goel (Supra) has
attained finality as SLP preferred by the respondents stands dismissed
in limine.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the relevant
dates to draw the attention of the Court that the period of one year has
lapsed and fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act is delayed by
8 months and 24 days.
9. Mr. Jain, learned Standing Counsel for LAC has also drawn the
attention of this Court to para 5 of the counter affidavit which has
been placed on record. Para 5 of the counter affidavit is reproduced
below:
"5. That it is submitted that the lands of village Prehlad
Pur Bangar were notified vide Notification under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 27.10.1999
which was followed by the Notification under Section 6 of
the Act dated 03.04.2000. The acquisition affected
parties challenged the acquisition proceeding before
Hon'ble Courts including the Supreme Court of India
which quashed the Section 6 Declaration in SLP No.
3513/2007. Having invited objections and having
considered the same in accordance with law, the than
LAC issued fresh Declaration u/s 6 on 20.03.2013 and
Award No. 07/14-15 came to be passed. The purpose of
acquisition was for Rohini Residential Scheme and
possession of Khasra number 53/11 and 53/12 was duly
taken on 09.05.2000 and handed over to the DDA by
preparing possession proceeding. Compensation
appears to have not been paid."
10. Mr. Jain further submits that the fresh notification under Section 6 of
the Act was issued within a period of one year of the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court on 21.03.2012.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. The case of the petitioner, in our view, is fully covered by the decision
rendered in the case of Sunil Goel (Supra), wherein the Division
Bench of this Court has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Padmasundara Rao (supra). The details of the time period
applicable to the present case, is detailed below in the form of a chart.
Time Lapse
Date of Section 4 27/10/1999
notification
Date of stay granted by 15/05/2000 6 months 18 days
High Court
Date of dismissal from 09/07/2007
High Court
Date of Notice and stay by 17/09/2007 2 months and 9 days
the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Date of decision by 21/03/2012
Hon'ble Supreme Court
quashing the declaration
u/s & urgency clause u/s 17
of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894
Declaration u/s 6 20/03/2013 11 months 27 days
Total time lapse 1 Year 8 months 24 days
13. Considering the time line we have detailed hereinabove leaves no
room for doubt that the fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act
was not issued within a period of one year after deducting the time
spent in Court and covered by the stay order granted by the Court i.e.
8 months 24 days for a period of stay granted by the High Court and
one month from 09.08.2007 being the period of stay granted by the
Supreme Court. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The
notification dated 27.10.1999 under Section 4 of the Act and the fresh
notification dated 20.03.2013 under Section 6 of the act are quashed.
14. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 06, 2018
SU
