Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 August, 2018
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 9th August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10211/2016
RAVINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajesh Gupta, Mr Harpreet and
Mr Pranjal Sareen, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Sachin Nawani, Adv for LAC
Mr Arun Birbal and Mr Sanjay Singh, Advs
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 the Constitution of India filed
by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
pertaining to land of the petitioner comprised in khasra No. 4//2 min, land
admeasuring 1 bigha 01 biswa situated in the revenue estate of Village Kirari
Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari), Delhi, 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 physical possession of the subject land has been
taken nor compensation has been paid.
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894 was issued on 21.03.2003, Section 6 declaration was made on
19.03.2004 and thereafter an award bearing No.25/2005-06/DC-(NW) was
passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 06.02.2006.
3. Mr Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the
actual physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and
compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, thus the petitioner would
be entitled to a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act.
4. Mr Nawani, learned counsel appearing for the LAC, submits that
physical possession of 1 bigha of the land falling in khasra No. 4//2 has not
been taken over as built up structures existed on that area. As far as payment
of compensation is concerned, it has not been paid. Relevant paragraph of
the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:-
"7. That out of the abovementioned land, the
possession of 3 bigha 9 biswa was taken over and
handed over to the beneficiary department, Delhi
Development Authority on 13.10.2006, whereas
the possession of the remaining 1 bigha of the land
falling in khasra No. 4//2 has not been taken over
being built up structures existed at the area. It is
pertinent to mention here that it cannot be
ascertained as to from which recorded owner the
possession of the vacant land has been taken over
and as to which recorded owner's portion is lying
built up, since part possession of the land has been
taken over from the entire khasra number acquired
and no titamma of the khasra number was carved
out. As per records the awarded compensation in
favour of Shri Ravinder at item No. 265 has not
been paid."
4. The learned counsel for the DDA submits that the land is in possession
of RPD-7 of DDA since 18.10.2006. Para (ii) & (iii) of the counter affidavit
filed by the DDA read as under:-
"(ii). ...The said land was acquired vide the award
bearing no. 25/2005-06 dated 06.02.2006.
Physical possession of the subject matter land was
taken over by the Government of NCT of Delhi
through the LAC on 13.10.2006 and handed over
to DDA on the same day.... The land is in
possession of RPD-7 of the DDA since
18.10.2006....
(iii) ... the compensation in respect of the subject
matter land could not be paid due to personal
reasons of the petitioner as one Attar Singh son of
Risal Singh raised objections against release of
compensation to the petitioner..."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
6. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by LAC and DDA makes it
abundantly clear that neither the physical possession of the subject land has
been taken over nor the compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions made and the stand taken
by LAC that physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and
compensation has not been paid to the petitioner, we are of the considered
view that the ingredients of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act stand satisfied. Since
the award having been announced more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and, having regard to the fact that the
physical possession has not been taken over and compensation has not been
tendered, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Act with regard to the subject land is deemed
to have been lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
8. In above terms, the writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 9, 2018
SU
