Delhi High Court
Hukum Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 February, 2018
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 7917/2015
HUKUM SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta, Mr. Pranjal Saran and Mr.
M.C. Verma, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Cherub
Goel, Advocates for UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/ LAC.
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel
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 petitioners. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings initiated with respect to 11 bigha 14 biswas of
the land of petitioners comprised in Khasra nos.33//13/2(1-14), 14(4-
16), 17(5-04), situated in the revenue estate of village Mubarak Pur
Dabas, 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 the „2013
Act‟), as neither the possession of the subject land has been taken nor
the compensation has been paid to the petitioners.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟)
was issued on 21.03.2003. A Section 6 declaration was made on
19.03.2004 and thereafter an Award bearing no.16/2005-06 was
rendered on 14.09.2005. Counsel for the petitioners submits that
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is crystal clear and in case either
possession has not been taken or compensation has not been tendered,
the acquisition proceedings would deem to have lapsed.
3. Counsel for the LAC relies on paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit
filed in support of his submission that the possession of the subject
land was taken on 04.04.2006, however, the compensation could not
be paid with respect to the said land as the petitioners never turned up
to receive the compensation.
4. Counsel for the DDA relies on paragraph (e) of the counter affidavit
filed in support of his submission that possession of the subject land
has been taken on 14.11.2006 and further transferred to the
Engineering Wing of the DDA on 14.11.2006 for DDA Scheme.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC read as
under:
"4. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
as the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land
falling in khasra numbers 33//13/2(1-14), 33//14(4-16) and
33//17(5-04) total measuring (11-14) was taken on the spot on
4.4.2006 and handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing
possession proceeding on the spot, however the compensation
could not be paid for the said land as the petitioners never
turned up to receive the compensation for the land.
5. That it is submitted that the lands of village Mubarakpur
Dabas were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 21.3.2003 which was
followed by the Notification under section 6 of the Act dated
19.3.2004. The Award was also passed vide Award
No.16/2005-06 dated 14.9.2005 and which acquisition
proceedings were apparently never challenged by the
petitioner."
7. Paragraph (e) of the counter affidavit filed by the DDA, reads as
under:
"e)...It is stated that the physical possession of the acquired
land falling in Khasra No.33//13/1-2(4-12), 14 Min (3-00) and
17 Min (4-18) of Village Mubarakpur Dabas, Delhi handed
over to the DDA by the Land Acquisition Collector, through
the Land & Building Department, Government of NCT of
Delhi on 14.11.2006 and further transferred to Engineering
Wing, DDA on 14.11.2006 for DDA Scheme..."
8. Although, the consistent stand of the respondent is that the possession
of the subject land has been taken, which is disputed by the counsel
for the petitioners, but it is clear that the compensation was not
tendered to the petitioners. In fact, it is admitted that no notice under
Section 12(2) of the 2013 Act was issued to the petitioners. In an
additional note provided by the DDA, it is stated that the land in
question is to be used for the proposed smart city. There is nothing
before us that the subject land has been put to use by the DDA or is
likely to be used in the immediate future.
9. Having regard to the submissions made and the stand taken by the
respondent, it is clear that the compensation has not been tendered to
the petitioners, thus the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
with respect to the land of the petitioners as described above are
deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
10. No other grounds have been raised by either of the parties.
11. The petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
pst /
