Delhi High Court
Fauzia Siddiqui vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 19 February, 2018
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 19th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 12180/2016
FAUZIA SIDDIQUI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
LAC/L&B with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.
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 i.e. Plot No. H-19, Abdul Fazal
Enclave, Part-II, Shaheen Bagh, Okhla, New Delhi comprised in
Khasra Nos. 409, admeasuring 160 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 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, which is
the subject matter of the present writ petition, has already been
declared to have 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 5 of the counter
affidavit, Naksha Mutzamim does not contain any entry regarding of
payment of compensation whereas Statement 'A' is untraceable. An
objection has also been raised with regard to the locus standi of the
petitioner by the respondent.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Para 5 of the counter affidavit reads as under:
"5. That it is submitted that the lands of village
Jasola were notified vide Notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act dated 23.06.1989 which
was followed by Notification under Section 6 of the
said Act vide Notification dated 22.06.1990. That the
then Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award No.
21/92-93 dated 18.06.1992 and the possession of the
total land falling in khasra number 409 (14-15) was
taken on 16.07.2007 after preparing Possession
Proceedings on the spot and was handed over to the
beneficiary department i.e. DDA immediately. The
Naksha Mutzamin however did not contain any entry
regarding payment of compensation whereas
Statement Á' is untraceable thus the exact status of
payment of compensation cannot be ascertained or
informed at this stage."
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 and affidavits have been filed on record.
He further submits that the case of the petitioner 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 confirm 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 petitioner is entitled to
declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject
land i.e. Plot No. H-19, Abdul Fazal Enclave, Part-II, Shaheen Bagh,
Okhla, New Delhi, are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered
accordingly.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of.
CM APPLN. No. 2888/2017
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
