Delhi High Court
Ram Prasad vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 13 February, 2018
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 13th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 7296/2016
RAM PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pankaj Vivek with Ms.Manpreet and
Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocates.
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
respondent/LAC.
Mr.Shashwat Anand, Advocate for
Mr.Shantanu Sagar, Advocate for respondent
no.2.
Mr.Virender Pratap Singh Charak and
Ms.Shubhra Parashar, Advocate for
respondent no.4/UOI.
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. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed
by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to the land i.e. residential plot measuring 100 square
yards out of Khasra No.628/2(3-05) and 631/2(4-12) situated in the
revenue estate of village Roshanpura, abadi known as Shyam Vihar,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land') is 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 petitioner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the petitioner had
purchased the residential plot measuring 100 square yards situated in
the revenue estate of village Roshanpura, Delhi by way of a registered
General Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and
Affidavit. He further submits that the Provisional Certificate of
Regularization was issued in favour of the colony where the land is
situated being Shyam Vihar, an unauthorized colony.
4. 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 07.04.2006, a
Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 04.04.2007 and
an Award bearing No.08/2008-09 was passed on 14.11.2008. Counsel
for the petitioner submits that neither possession has been taken nor
compensation has been tendered to the petitioner. He also submits
that his submission is further fortified by the stand taken by the LAC
in the counter affidavit.
5. Counsel for the LAC submits that the subject land vests in Gaon
Sabha, thus, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim any
compensation. Mr.Jain has also opposed this petition on the ground
that the petitioner is not the rightful owner. In support of his
submissions, he relies on paragraph 4A of the counter affidavit, which
read as under:
"4A. That it is submitted that the lands of Village Roshanpura
were notified vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act dated 07.04.2006 which was followed by Notification under
Section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 04.04.2007 and the
Award No.08/08-09 dated 14.11.2008 was also passed as per the law.
It is submitted that the possession of the subject land falling in Khasra
number 628/2 (3-05) & 631/2 (4-12) could not be taken nor the
compensation has been paid. It is however pertinent to mention here
that the petitioner is claiming 100 sq. yds. out of the said Khasra
numbers without disclosing the extent of land in individual khasra
number for which he is seeking relief under the present writ petition".
6. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised
by Mr.Jain, as far as title of the land is concerned, be kept open to be
decided in appropriate proceedings. Counsel submits further that an
identical issue had arisen before another Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Sanjeev Solanki Vs. Delhi Development Authority and
Ors, W.P. (C) 1999/2015, decided on 24.01.2017. Counsel submits
that a similar view has also been expressed by this Court in the case of
Parshotam Joshi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C)
4255/2016, decided on 08.11.2017.
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
8. As far as the objection raised by the counsel for the LAC with regard
to the land being vested in the Gaon Sabha is concerned, we deem it
appropriate to follow a decision rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Sanjeev Solanki (supra), paragraph 5 of
which reads as under:-
"5. While we have declared that the subject
acquisition has lapsed, it is made clear that this would
not amount to giving title to the petitioner or perfecting
the petitioner's title inasmuch as Mr.Jain has taken the
plea in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent no.2 that the Gaon Sabha has been shown as
the recorded owner. This fact is disputed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. But, we are not entering into
the controversy of title which may be sorted out
elsewhere. Insofar as the acquisition is concerned, the
same has lapsed because neither physical possession was
taken over nor compensation was paid."
9. On reading of the counter affidavit, it leaves no room for doubt that
neither the physical possession of 100 square yards out of Khasra
No.628/2(3-05) and 631/2(4-12) has been taken nor the compensation
has been tendered.
10. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the land subject matter are
deemed to have lapsed. It is declared accordingly. However, we make
it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the title of the
above 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.
CM No.30016/2016 (stay)
The application is disposed of, in view of order passed in writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
ssc
