Delhi High Court
Deepak Chhabra And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 7 August, 2018
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 7th August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 4160/2015
DEEPAK CHHABRA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. A.K. De, Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi and
Ms. Ananya De and Mr. Anuj
Chauhan, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS...... Respondents
Through Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC and Mr.
Siddharth Singh, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta, Advocates
for DDA.
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 of the petitioners situated in the revenue estate of Village
Karala, Utsav Vihar, Delhi 110081 (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land')
as detailed herein after, 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 the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid to the
petitioners although physical possession of the subject land has been taken
over. The petitioners claim the above relief in respect of the following land:
Khasra No. Area Village
73/12 450 sq. yards
73/14 1bigha ½ biswa
73/16 1400 sq. yards
73/17 1 Bigha, 482 sq. yards Karala, Utsav Vihar,
Delhi-110081
73/18 3700 sq. yards
73/19 1732 sq. yards
73/22 300 sq. yards
73/23 1162 sq. yards
73/24 232 sq. yards
83/1 250 sq. yards
83/4 2176 sq. yards
83/5/1 200 sq. yards
83/5/2 400 sq. yards
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 21.03.2003 and a
declaration under Section 6 was made on 19.03.2004. Thereafter, an award
bearing no.22/2005-06/DC/(N-W) was passed on 02.01.2006 under Section
11 of the Act.
3. Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has drawn the
attention of the Court to para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC as
per which only part possession of the subject land had been taken over by the
Government and thereafter the same was handed over to the concerned
authority. As far as the payment of compensation is concerned, it has been
clearly averred in para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC that the
same has not been paid to the petitioners. In these circumstances, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be entitled to a
declaration under Section 24(2) of the Act.
4. Mr Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC, submits that only part
possession of the subject land has been taken over and compensation in
respect thereof has not been paid to the recorded owners. Paras 7 and 8 of the
counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:-
"7. That the Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award
bearing No. 22/2005-06 dated 02.01.2006 and it is submitted
that the physical possession of the land of the certain Khasra
Nos. in village Karalawere taken in part by the Government
and handedover the same to the respective authority."
"8. That the Petitioners in the present writ Petition are not the
recorded owners and have purchased the Land through
General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, ranging from
100 sq. yards to 2176 sq. yards. It further submitted that it is
difficult for the answering Respondent to ascertain that from
which plot holder the same possession in part has been taken.
Therefore, the details from the Revenue Records are herein
below:-
ITE Recorded Khasra Date of Remaining Compensation
M owners nos. possession land
No.
396 Vikas Mathur 73//12 (4-06) was (0-10) Not Paid
S/o. Dharambir (4-16) taken on
21.02.2007
398 There are 73//14 (3-05) was (1-07) Not Paid
399 different (4-12) taken on
393- recorded 21.02.2007
395 owners at the
items mentioned
item No. 398(1-
10), item No.
(1-00), item Nos.
393-395
(2-02)
645 Surjan s/o. 73//16 Not Taken (4-16) Not Paid
Badlu (4-16)
645 There are 73//17 (1-15) on (3-01) Not Paid
653 different (4-16) 21.02.2007
654 recorded
656 owners at the
items mentioned
item No. 645(1-
16), item No.
653(1-00),item
No. 654(1-00)
item No. 656(1-
00)
393- Dharambir, 73//18 (4-04) taken (0-12) Not Paid
395 Mehtab Singh (4-16) on 21.02.2007
and Satpal Singh
s/o. Mange Ram
(having 1/3rd
share each)
759 Gram Sabha 73//19 (4-10) Taken (0-06) Not Paid
(4-16) on
21.02.2007
759 Gram Sabha 73//22 (4-12) taken (0-04) Not Paid
(4-16) on 21.02.2007
645 owners at the 73//23 (4-16) taken - Not paid.
646 items mentioned (4-16) on
650- 16), item No.
651 646(2-00), item
No. 649(1-00)
item No. 650-
651 (1-00)
645 owners at the 73//24 (1-00) taken (3-16) Not Paid
646 items mentioned (4-16) on21.02.2007
646(1-00), item
No. 652(1-00)
item No. 655 (2-
01)
759 Gram Sabha 83//1 (2-00) taken (2-09) Not Paid
(4-09) on 21.02.2007
645 Surjan s/o. 83//4 (3-11) taken (1-01) Not Paid
Badlu (4-12) on 21.02.2007
645 Surjan s/o. 83//5/1 Not taken (2-00) Not Paid
Badlu (2-00)
36- Mange Ram, 83//5/2 Not taken (2-12) Not Paid
41 Suraj Bhan, (2-12)
Diwan Singh,
Inder Singh,
Satbir Singh s/o.
Kirti Singh
(having 1/5th
share each)
5. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the LAC has however opposed the
petition on the ground that the petitioners are claiming relief based on
General Power of Attorney, Will, receipt etc. which cannot confer title on the
petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as
far as objection with regard to the ownership and title is concerned, the case
of the petitioners would be covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another,
reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751.
7. Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta, learned counsel for the DDA, submits that
physical possession of the subject land had been handed over to DDA by
L&B / LAC on 21-02-2007 and the same was further transferred to JE/RPD
on 18-07-2007. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed by the
DDA reads as under:-
"...it is also submitted that the physical possession of
Khasra No. 73/12min (4-6), 14 min (3-5), 18 min (4-4), 19 min
(4-10), 22 min, (4-12), 23 (4-16), 24 min (1-00), 83/1 min, (2-
0), 4 min, (3-11), has been handed over to DDA by L&B / LAC
on 21-02-2007 and some further transferred to JE/RPD on 18-
07-2007. The payment to compensation has been sent to L&B
/LAC vide Cheque NO. 094622 dated 06-06-2006 to Rs.
1,04,06,06,716/- against Award No. 22/2005-06/DC/NW."
8. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
9. Having regard to the observation made by the Apex Court in the case
of Manav Dharma Trust (Supra), in our view the objection raised by
Mr. Jain, learned Standing Counsel for LAC/L&B is misplaced. In the case
of Manav Dharma Trust (supra), the Apex Court has held as under :
"28. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the
successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc.,
are all persons who are interested in
compensation/landowners/ affected persons in terms of
the 2013 Act and such persons are entitled to file a case
for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings
have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act. It is a declaration qua the land wherein
indisputably they have an interest and they are affected
by such acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot be
said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any
locus standi."
10. Having regard to the categorical stand taken in the counter affidavit
filed by the LAC that part physical possession of the subject land has been
taken over by the Government and compensation in respect thereof has not
been paid to the recorded owners, and also taking into consideration the fact
that the award having been announced five years prior to the commencement
of the 2013 Act, in our view, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that
the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land are deemed to have
lapsed. It is ordered accordingly. As the petitioner has restricted his claim to
payment of compensation in terms of the Act of 2013, compensation be paid
to the petitioners within one year from today.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 07, 2018
SU
