Delhi High Court
Sunita Devi And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 February, 2018
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment :19th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 4251/2016
SUNITA DEVI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Gaurav Puri, Mr. Dhan Singh, Mr.
Vijya Pratap Singh & Ms. Shweta
Pandey, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Mini Pushkarna with Ms.
Anushruti, Advocates for L&B/LAC.
Mr. Akshay Makhija with Mr. Aditya
Goyal & Ms. Mahima Bahl, Advs. for
applicants in CM APPL 6477/2018 &
6478/2018.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM.APPL 6478/2018 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4251/2016
3. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by
the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceeding
pertaining to the land of the petitioners admeasuring 1 bigha 15 biswas
comprised in Khasra no.272 min., situated in the revenue estate of
village Jasola, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „subject land‟)
stands lapsed in view of section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as „2013 Act‟) as
although the physical possession of the subject land has been taken but
compensation has not been tendered to the petitioners.
4. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are
that in this case a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 („the Act‟ in short) was issued on 06.04.1964 and a
declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 07.12.1966.
Thereafter, an award bearing no.4/1997-98 was passed on 05.12.1997.
5. Mr. Puri has drawn attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed
by the LAC, more particularly paras 7 and 8, which read as under :-
"7. That as regards physical possession, perusal of
record shows that possession of Khasra no. 272 min (01-
09) was taken over on 06.08.2009 and physical
possession of Khasra no. 272 min (00-04) was taken over
on 23.11.2012 and handed over to DDA. As regards the
compensation, it is submitted that the land in question
was originally owned by Late Sh. Radhey Shyam S/o
Munna Lal, who was absolute owner of land
admeasuring 1 bigha 15 biswa comprising Khasra no.
272 min. Thus the compensation with respect to Khasra
272 min. was to be paid to Late Sh. Radhey Shyam.
8. That, as per the Naksha Muntzamin, the
compensation with respect to the land in question
comprised in Khasra no. 272 min. has not been paid.
Statement A of Award no. 4/97-98 Village Jasola is also
not available with the Accounts Branch of LAC."
6. Counsel for LAC submits that although possession of the subject land
has been taken but the compensation has not been tendered. None is
present for the DDA. No counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA.
7. Mr. Puri submits that in view of the categorical assertions made by the
LAC in the counter affidavit that no compensation has been tendered,
the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the provision of section
24 (2) of the 2013 Act.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Paras 7 & 8 of the
counter affidavit filed by LAC, which we have reproduced above
confirms that the compensation has not been tendered to the
petitioners. Although, there is nothing on record to show that the land
has been put to use, however, Mr. Puri submits that the land has been
put to use and thus the petitioners would only be entitled to
compensation as per 2013 Act. Resultantly, the writ petition is
allowed. It is declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to
the subject land stand lapsed. However, petitioners would only be
entitled to compensation as per 2013 Act, which would be paid within
one year from today. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion with regard to title over the land in question.
9. The writ petition is disposed of.
CM.APPL 6477/2018 (impleadment)
10. This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by four
applicants claiming ownership and possession over the part of the land
in question.
11. Notice.
12. In view of the order passed in the writ petition to the effect that we
have not expressed any opinion with regard to the title of the land, it is
agreed that no further orders are required to be passed in this
application.
13. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
CM APPL 17941/2016 (stay)
14. The 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/ck/
