Delhi High Court
Shri Kuldeep And Ors vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 27 August, 2018
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgement: 27th August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8510/2017
SHRI KULDEEP & ORS. ........Petitioners
Through: Ms. Puja Srivastava and Mr. Deepak
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate, for
respondents No.2 & 3 - L&B/LAC.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1- DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to 4 Bighas of the land comprised in
Khasra No. 596min situated in the revenue estate of village
Ghazipur, NCT of 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 '2013 Act'), as neither the physical possession has been taken
nor compensation has been paid to the petitioners.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this petition are
that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on
13.11.1959, a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
20.06.1966 and an Award bearing No.94/1986-87 was passed on
17.09.1986.
3. Ms. Puja Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken
and the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, the
petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act. She further submits that her submission is further
fortified by the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit.
Learned counsel further relies on 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, in response to
the stand taken by LAC in the counter affidavit that the petitioners
have no locus standi to file the present petition as they are not the
recorded owners. Reliance is placed on para 28 of this judgment
which reads 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."
4. On the other hand, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC
submits that neither the possession of the subject land has been
taken nor the compensation been paid to the petitioners as the same
is lying deposited in RD. In support of his submissions, counsel for
LAC relies on para 5 of the counter affidavit, which read as under:
"5. .....It is submitted that having completed the
requisite legal formalities, the then Land Acquisition
Collector passed an Award No. 94/86-87 dated
17.09.1986 however the possession of subject land
falling in khasra number 596/3 min (4-00) could not
be taken nor the compensation be paid as the same is
lying deposited in RD. "
5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the LAC further submits that
the petitioners herein have not placed on record any documents so
as to claim their right, title or interest in the subject land, as that of
the recorded owners.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that neither
physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor
compensation has been paid to the petitioners. Counsel has also
submitted that the objections of the LAC regarding locus standi of
the petitioners is misplaced in view of the observations made by
the Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust (supra) where the
rights of the subsequent purchaser have been recognized.
8. As far as the objection with regard to maintainability is concerned,
we find the same to be misplaced in view of the observations made
by the Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust
(supra). We are of the considered view that, the submissions made
by the counsel for the LAC that the petitioners have no locus standi
to file the present petition as they are the subsequent owners of the
subject land, holds no ground.
9. Having regard to the submissions made in the counter affidavit
filed by LAC that the possession of the subject land has not been
taken and the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid
and since the award has been announced more than five years prior
to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petitioners are entitled
to a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that the
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act with relation to the
subject land, are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
10. However, we made it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
on the title of the subject land. The question of title of the subject
land is left open to be decided in the appropriate court of
jurisdiction.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
AUGUST 27, 2018
