Delhi High Court
Shri Sirajuddin vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 19 February, 2018
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 19th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8130/2016
SHRI SIRAJUDDIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv 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 875 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 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 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 and have not placed on
record any documents which could show that they
are the owners of the land in question. The
agreements to sell are not registered documents
and thus cannot be taken as valid documents.
Moreover, the agreement to sell (dated nil of
February, 1996 at page no. 35) has been executed
by Sukhdev and Jai Singh only, whereas there are
other co-owners also. Thus, this agreement to sell
is a void one."
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 copy of agreement to sell
has 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 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 could 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 are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of.
CM APPLN. No. 33691/2016
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
