Delhi High Court
Kiran Gupta And Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 27 February, 2018
$~19 & 20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2672/2014
KIRAN GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 2682/2014
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Present : Mr. N. S. Dalal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Advocate for LAC/L&B.
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA in W. P. (C)
2672/2014.
Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA in W. P. (C) 2682/2014.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 27.02.2018
1. Pleadings are complete.
2. Both these writ petitions have been heard with the consent of the
parties and the same are being disposed of by a common order.
3. Both the petitioners are co-owners of land comprised in Khasra
Nos. 35/23/1 (0-5) and 35/23/2 (1-05) total measuring 2 Bighas
subject matter of W. P. (C) 2672/2014 and Khasra No. 35/24
measuring 2 Bighas subject matter of W. P. (C) 2682/2014 both
lands situated in the revenue estate of Village Mamurpur, Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Subject Land').
4. The petitioners in the present petitions have sought a declaration
that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land are
deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to
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 lands has been taken nor the
compensation has been tendered.
5. During the pendency of these writ petitions, following order was
passed on 01.12.2014:
"The learned counsel for the petitioners in
these writ petitions states that these petitions
are not covered under Section 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. The learned counsel
is pressing the first prayer and is not pressing
the second prayer. As such, the respondents
would have to file a detailed affidavit
pertaining to the first prayer in both these
petitions. The same be filed within four weeks.
The rejoinder affidavit, if necessary, be filed
within two weeks thereafter.
Renotify on 02.02.2015."
6. On 01.12.2014, learned counsel for the petitioners had made a
statement that the petitioners would not press the second prayer as
Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act, would not be applicable as the award
was passed less than 5 years prior to coming into force of 2013
Act.
7. Today, Mr. Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was served on either of the
two petitioners. Despite the fact that prior to issuance of Section
4 notification of the Act, the petitioners had purchased the land in
question in the year 1996 and the mutation was carried out in their
favour in the same year itself.
8. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite the land being
mutated in their favour, their names were not reflected in the award
and no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was given to them
which according to Mr. Dalal was mandatory. In these
circumstances, he has prayed that the entire acquisition proceeding
are liable to be quashed.
9. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the LAC submits that Section 12 (2)
of the Act would apply only in cases with regard to compensation.
He submits that the Section 12(2) of the act makes it abundantly
clear that in cases where a person is present at the time of making
award, the limitation is fixed at six weeks. In cases where the
person is not present but Section 12 (2) notice is received by him,
the limitation is also fixed for 6 weeks. The period of limitation is
6 months from the date of passing the award or knowledge of
making of the award.
10. At this stage, Mr. Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that since these writ petitions are required to be amended
extensively, he wishes to withdraw the present writ petitions with
liberty to file a fresh petition raising all the pleas available to him.
He further submits that he would file fresh petitions within two
weeks and till such period interim order may be continued.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contend that the
legal objections available to the respondents be kept open. They
further submit that no coercive action would be taken against the
petitioners for two weeks.
12. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are dismissed as
withdrawn. Leave as prayed granted. Legal objections of the
respondents are kept open.
CM APPLN. No. 5569/2014 in W. P. (C) 2672/2014 and
CM APPLN. No. 5586/2014 in W. P. (C) 2682/2014
In view of the order passed in the writ petitions, the present
applications stand disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2018
gr
