Delhi High Court
Ishrat Ali vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 19 February, 2018
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 19th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8138/2016
ISHRAT ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ghawana, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate for
LAC/L&B.
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 petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
pertaining to land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra Nos. 409
admeasuring 250 Sq. Yards in the revenue State of Village Jasola,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Subject Land') is deemed to have
been 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 of the subject land has been taken nor
compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the same Khasra number i.e. 409 has
already lapsed in terms of the order passed by this Court in W. P. (C)
1880/2017 titled as Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
and identical objections raised by the respondents have not been
accepted by the Court.
3. In this case, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on
23.06.1989, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
22.06.1990 and an Award bearing No.21/1992-93 was passed on
18.06.1992.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by LAC. As per para 7 of the counter
affidavit, compensation has not been paid to the recorded owners
based on the Naksha Mutzamim. However, an objection has been
raised with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Para 7 of the counter affidavit reads as under:
"7. That as per the records, out of 53 bighas and 02
biswas of land in Khasra No. 409, possession of 14
bighas and 15 biswas was taken over and handed over
to the beneficiary department on 16.07.2017.
However, as per the Naksha Mutzamin compensation
was not paid to the recorded owners. Further, the
petitioner is not the recorded owner and has not
placed on record any documents which could show
that he is the owners of the land in question. The
agreements to sell are not registered documents and
thus cannot be taken as valid documents. Further, no
document has been placed on record to show that the
land in question has been purchased from recorded
owner. Moreover, the present petitioner was having
full knowledge about the status of the land in question
and without taking permission from the competent
authority as required under Delhi Land (Restriction of
Transfer) Act, 1972 have purchased the lands. Such
sale/purchase is void and does not bind the
Government in any manner. Since, the petitioner is
subsequent purchaser, they don't have any right to
seek release of the land in question. Thus, the
petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition
and seek any relief with respect to the above said
khasra numbers."
7. It may be noted that the subject land pertains to khasra No. 409, two
writ petitions pertains to Khasra No. 409 being W. P. (C) 1880/2017
and 3714/2015 have already been allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the
subsequent purchaser of the subject land and copies of Agreement to
Sell, GPA's, Will, receipts, affidavits and delivery of possession have
been filed on record. He further submits that his case would be
covered by 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.
9. In the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra), the Apex Court has held
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."
10. Having regard to the observation made by the Apex Court in Manav
Dharma Trust (Supra), in our view the objection raised by learned
counsel for LAC/L&B is misplaced. However, we make it clear that
this order would not deemed to be an expression on the title of the
petitioner.
11. Reading of the counter affidavit would show that the compensation
has not been paid to the recorded owner. Resultantly, it is declared
that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to land of the petitioner is
deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act . We
accept the undertaking given by the petitioner that they have not
received the compensation and they shall remain bound by the same.
Should it be proved otherwise, it would amount to making a false
statement to the Court.
12. Since, the award having been announced more than five years prior to
the commencement of the 2013 Act, the compensation not having
been paid, the petitioner is entitled to declaration that the acquisition
proceedings in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed.
It is ordered accordingly.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of.
CM APPLN. No. 33699/2016
The present application stands disposed of in view of the order passed
in the writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2018
gr
