Delhi High Court
Ajay Kumar vs Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. on 30 January, 2018
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 30th January, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8674/2015
AJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.S.Rana, Advocate
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Siddharth Panda, Adv. for
LAC/L&B.
Mr.Zahid Hanief, proxy counsel for
Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC
(Civil), GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Counter affidavit is stated to have been filed in the Registry on
29.01.2018. Let another copy of the same be supplied to the counsel
for the petitioner.
2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final
hearing and disposal.
3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed
by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a direction to respondent
no.1/LAC (North) to forward the reference of the acquired land
bearing Khasra Nos.23/11 min (2-12) and 23/20 min (2-12) situated in
the revenue estate of village Harevli to the concerned court. The
counsel of the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner late
Sh.Tek Ram was in the actual physical and cultivatory possession of
agricultural land bearing Khasra No.23/11 min (4-16), 23/12 (4-16),
23/16 (4-16), 23/17 (4-16), 23/19 (4-16) and 23/20 (2-16) situated in
the revenue estate of Village Harevli, Delhi for the last more than 50
years. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the father of the
petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 3257/1995 titled as
Tek Ram vs. Deputy Commissioner, Delhi and Ors. seeking a
direction that his possession be recorded in the revenue records in
accordance with the Delhi Land Revenue Rules. It is also contended
that such direction was issued on 30.05.2002. However, in spite of the
aforesaid order, his name was not included in the revenue records.
Counsel submits that the petitioner was also forced to file another writ
petition being W.P.(C) 806/2003 titled as Tek Ram vs. Union of India
& Ors. seeking protection of his possession over the subject land,
which was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2003 with various
directions. Since the directions in both the writ petitions were not
complied with, another writ petition being W.P.(C) 3315/2008 titled as
Tek Ram vs. UOI & Ors. was filed, which was disposed of vide order
dated 04.03.2009 and his physical possession was protected. He also
submits that various petitions were filed by his late father for
correction of the Khasra Girdawaries with regard to the entry of
possession of Tek Ram including:
i) 345/RA/86 Tek Ram vs. GS Harevli
ii) 139/SO (C) 95 Tek Ram vs. GS Harevli
iii) 11/SO (C)/N/2002 Tek Ram vs. GS Harevli
iv) 12/SO (C)/N/2002 Tek Ram vs. GS Harevli
4. It is the complaint of the petitioner that post the acquisition
proceedings, an application was made on 12.07.2004 for withdrawal
of the compensation amount or in the alternate for making a reference
to the Additional District Judge (ADJ) under Section 30-31 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and
for proper adjudication. Another application under Section 18 of the
Act was made on 13.06.2006 for enhancement of compensation,
which has also not been considered.
5. Mr. Panda, counsel for the LAC submits that as per the record of the
LAC, the petitioner is not the recorded owner and thus, no action has
been taken on his application under Section 18 of the Act, which was
filed on 13.06.2006. Mr.Rana, counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) is a quasi-judicial authority and
in case, for any reason, the application under Section 18 of the Act
was to be rejected, he should have followed the principles of natural
justice and granted an opportunity of hearing to enable the petitioner
to explain his stand and to enable him to produce court orders and
other supporting documents.
6. At this stage, counsels for the parties agree that the LAC would issue a
notice to the petitioner and grant him a personal hearing and thereafter
pass a reasoned order within three months from the receipt of this
order.
7. Before we part with the judgment, we cannot help but note that the
office of the LAC did not take any action on the request of the
petitioner dated 12.07.2004 and 13.06.2006. The explanation rendered
as noted in para 5 above is most unsatisfactory and unacceptable as the
petitioner has not been informed in writing. We direct the Land
Acquisition Collector to ensure that all the applications which are filed
should be dealt with expeditiously and within a reasonable period of
time and in case, the applications are to be rejected, the order of
rejection should be conveyed to the applicants.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JANUARY 30, 2018
rb/
