Delhi High Court
N K Jain vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 August, 2018
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 17th August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8478/2017
N K JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Samit Khosla, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Prashant Varma, SCGC with Ms.
Shalu Goswami, Advocate for UOI.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate, for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings initiated in respect of the land of petitioner measuring 7
bighas and 6 biswas, comprised in Mustatil no.76, Killa no.2(4-12),
9(2-14), situated in the revenue estate of village Devli, Tehsil
Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to 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 the '2013 Act'),
as neither compensation has been tendered to the petitioner nor
possession of the subject land has been taken.
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on
05.11.1980. The petitioner claims to have become the absolute owner
of the subject land in terms of the sale deed dated 03.06.1985.
Thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on
21.05.1985 and an Award bearing no.19/87-88 under Section 11 of the
Act was rendered on 05.06.1987.
3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the DDA and LAC. As per the
counter affidavit filed by the DDA, it is admitted that the physical
possession of the subject land has not been handed over to the DDA.
Para 3(k) of the counter affidavit filed by the DDA reads as under :
"3(k) It is submitted that the petitioner is claiming to be
owners of the land bearing Khasra nno.76//2 (4-12) and
76//9 (2-14) situated in village Devli, Tehsil Mehrauli,
Delhi. As per the available record, the land in question
falls in the Khasra Nos.76//2 (4-2) and 9(2-14), situated
in the Revenue Estate of village Devli, Tehsil Mehrauli,
Delhi and the same was notified under Section 4 on
05.11.1980 and under Section 6 on 6.6.1985 for planned
development of Delhi following the due process of law.
After notifications under Sections 4 & 6, the land stands
acquired vide Award no.19/1987-88. Physical possession
of the same has not been handed over to DDA."
4. As per the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, the amount of
compensation in favour of Shri Kishan Dev Singh has been sent to
RD, but the physical possession of the subject land could not be taken.
Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by LAC reads as under :
"4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Devli
were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 5.11.1980 which was
followed by the Notification under section 6 of the Act
dated 21.5.85. The Award was also passed vide Award
no.19/87-88 dated 5.6.87, however the physical
possession of the subject land falling in khasra number
76//2 (4-12), 76//9 (2-14) could not be taken. As per R.D.
Register the compensation amount in favour of Sh.
Kishan Dev Singh is sent in RD."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions.
6. Reading of the counter affidavits filed by the LAC and DDA leave no
room for doubt that in this case neither physical possession of the
subject land has been taken nor compensation has been tendered to the
petitioner, but the same has been sent to RD and thus, the necessary
ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are accordingly met.
7. Having regard to the fact that possession of the subject land has not
been taken nor compensation has been tendered to the petitioners but
has been sent to RD and since the Award having been announced
more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the
case of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act, thus, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
with regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is
ordered accordingly.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
AUGUST 17, 2018
ck
