Delhi High Court
Asha Prakash vs Union Of India And Others on 4 January, 2018
$~R-36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment 4th January, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9545/2015, CM APPL. No. 22516/2015
ASHA PRAKSH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Richa Oberoi, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate for
LAC/L&B
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition was admitted on 21.11.2016.
2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect
to the land of the petitioner being 1 bigha 12 biswas 7 biswansi, out
of the half share of land forming part of Khasra No.814 Min (3-5)
and 815 Min (1-12) situated in the revenue estate of village-
Satbari, New Delhi stands lapsed, as neither the actual physical
possession has been taken nor the compensation has been paid.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a notification under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act') was issued on 25.11.1980 and a declaration under Section 6
of the said Act was made on 27.05.1985 and an Award bearing
No.14/87-88 was made on 26.05.1987 with respect to the subject
land. It is also the case of the petitioner that case is fully covered
by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki & Ors.
Reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183.
4. Mr.Panda, counsel for LAC has opposed the writ petition firstly on
the ground of maintainability. It is contended that the petitioner is
not the rightful owner, thus, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner. He further submits that the possession of the subject
land was taken and handed over to beneficiary department.
However, he does not dispute that the compensation has not been
paid.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that objection with regard to the
maintainability is misplaced and reliance is placed on Govt. of
NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another, reported in
2017 (6) SCC 751.
6. We have heard counsel for parties.
7. The petitioner has claimed ownership based on the fact that
initially Smt. Neena Narang and Smt. Promila Badhwar were
recorded owners as per the revenue record copies whereof have
been filed on record.
8. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased
1/2th share of aforesaid land from Smt.Promila Badhwar and the
petitioner further sold 790 square yards, out of her 1/2th share to
one Anchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. Anchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. had
filed a similar writ petition bearing no.8267/2014 pertaining to 790
square yards, out of 1/2th share of land forming part of Khasra
no.814 min (3-5) and 815 min (1-12).
9. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated
22.09.2015.
10. As far as objection raised by the counsel for the LAC with regard
to the ownership is concerned, we find the objection to be
misplaced on account of decision rendered in the case of Manav
Dharma Trust (supra) and the averments noted above. Para 28 of
this judgment reads 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."
11. Resultantly, there is no merit in the objection raised by the counsel
for the LAC with regard to maintainability of the writ petition.
12. Taking into consideration the averments made in the writ petition
and stand of the LAC that the compensation has not been paid and
the award having been announced more than five years prior to the
commencement of the Act of 2013, we are of the view that the
necessary ingredients of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act as interpreted
by the Supreme Court of India in case Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki & Ors.
Reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 stands satisfied. As a result, the
petitioner is entitled to declaration that the acquisition proceedings
initiated under 1894 Act in respect of subject land are deemed to
have lapsed. It is so declared accordingly.
CM No.22516/2015
The application stands disposed of in view of order passed in writ
petition.
G. S. SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JANUARY 04, 2018
ssc/gr
