Delhi High Court
Attar Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 February, 2018
$~8 to 12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 16th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10876/2016
ATTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
respondent/L&B-LAC.
Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Akshita Manocha, Ms.Komal
Sorout and Ms.Gauri Chaturvedi,
Advocates for respondent/DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 10881/2016
J P GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
respondent/L&B-LAC.
Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for
respondent/DDA.
W.P. (C) No.10876/2016 etc. Page 1 of 7
+ W.P.(C) 10885/2016
BALWANT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Mrs.K.Kaomudi Kiran Pathak &
Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocates for
respondent/L&B-LAC.
Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Akshita Manocha, Ms.Komal
Sorout and Ms.Gauri Chaturvedi,
Advocates for respondent/DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 10887/2016
SUDHA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
respondent/L&B-LAC.
Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for
respondent/DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 10892/2016
SAROJ BALA ..... Petitioner
W.P. (C) No.10876/2016 etc. Page 2 of 7
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
respondent/L&B-LAC.
Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Akshita Manocha, Ms.Komal
Sorout and Ms.Gauri Chaturvedi,
Advocates for respondent/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Pleadings are complete.
2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are set down for final
hearing and disposal.
3. Arguments have been addressed individually, however, for the sake of
convenience the writ petitions are being disposed of, by this common
judgment.
4. Present petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings pertaining to their respective shares in the lands 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').
5. The details of the writ petitions, name of the petitioners, Khasra
numbers and villages are detailed below:-
Sl.No. W.P.(C) No. Name of the Khasra No. Village
Petitioner
1. 10876/2016 Attar Singh 43/12 min Mohammad-
(1-4), Khata pur Majri,
Khatauni Delhi
No.34/18
2. 10881/2016 J.P.Gupta 43/7 min Mohammad-
(2-12), Khata pur Majri,
Khatauni Delhi.
No.3/2
3. 10885/2016 Balwant Singh 26/21(4-16), Mohammad-
36/1(4-16), pur Majri,
10(4-16), Delhi.
11(4-16) &
38/4 (4-12)
total
measuring
23 bighas 16
biswas,
Khata
Khatauni
No.204/100
4. 10887/2016 Smt.Sudha Gupta 43/7 min Mohammad-
(2-0), Khata pur Majri,
Khatauni Delhi.
No.3/2
5. 10892/2016 Smt.Saroj Bala 43/12 min Mohammad-
(1-0), Khata pur Majri,
Khatauni Delhi.
No.35/18
6. We may note that all the writ petitions pertain to Village
Mohammadpur Majri, Delhi.
7. In this case, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on
21.03.2003, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
19.03.2004 and an Award bearing No.20/2005-06 was passed on
28.11.2005. It is the common case of all the petitioners that neither
possession of the land has been taken nor compensation has been
tendered to the petitioners.
8. In the counter affidavits filed by the LAC, a consistent stand has been
taken that the compensation has not been tendered. No notice under
Section 12 (2) of the Act was issued to any of the petitioners calling
upon them to accept the compensation.
9. As far as the possession of land is concerned, the same is noticed writ
petition-wise as follows:-
W.P.(C) Nos.10876/2016, 10881/2016, 10887/2016 & 10892/2016
10. The stand of the LAC is that the possession of the land of the
petitioners was taken on 02.08.2006; however, the compensation has
not been paid to the petitioners. As per counter affidavit filed by the
DDA, the possession has been handed over to them by the LAC.
W.P.(C) 10885/2016
11. Para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:-
"That as regards possession and compensation it is
humbly submitted that as per possession proceeding
report, possession of Khasra No.26//21 min (4-14),
36//1(4-16), 36//10 min(4-14), 36//11(4-16), total
measuring 19 bigha has been taken on 02.08.2006.
Possession of remaining land comprised in khasra
nos.26//21 min(0-2), 36//10 min (0-2), 38//4 min(4-12)
total admeasuring 4 bigha 16 biswa has not been
taken. So far compensation amount is concerned, it is
humbly submitted that compensation amount has not
been paid".
As per counter affidavit filed by the DDA, the possession of entire
land has been taken but counsel points out that in the subsequent
comments received, the possession of part of the land admeasuring 0
bigha 4 biswa has not been taken.
W.P.(C) Nos.10876/2016, 10881/2016, 10885/2016, 10887/2016 &
10892/2016
12. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the admitted
position that the compensation has not been tendered, the case of the
petitioners would squarely fall within the provision of Section 24(2) of
2013 Act. He further submits that actual physical possession of entire
land pertaining to all five writ petitions is with the respective
petitioners.
13. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
14. A reading of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act would show that in case, the
physical possession of the acquired land has not been taken or the
compensation has not been tendered to the land owners, the
acquisition proceedings would lapse.
15. We may also note that in all these matters as stated during the course
of hearing, the Collector had not issued any notice under Section 12(2)
of the Act, of his award to the land owners.
16. Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners at no point
of time refused the acceptance of compensation directly or indirectly
by approaching any court by filing any writ petition or seeking any
stay in the matter.
17. Counsel for the DDA on subsequent comments received has submitted
that the land in question is required for Smart City.
18. There is nothing before us to show that land has been put to use or
there is immediately requirement or any specific plan to put the land to
use.
19. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case, the land is required; it
is open to the respondents to acquire the land afresh.
20. Having regard to the submissions made and the stand taken by the
respondents in their counter affidavits that the compensation has not
been tendered to any of the petitioners, we are of the considered view
that the petitioners would be entitled to declaration that the acquisition
proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in respect of the land subject
matter of writ petitions, in terms of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act. It is
declared accordingly.
21. The writ petitions stand allowed.
CM Nos.42625/2016, 42631/2016, 42637/2016, 42644/2016 &
42687/20916 (for stay)
All these applications stand disposed of, in view of order passed in the
writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
afa/ssc
