Delhi High Court
Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese vs Lt. Governor Cum Administrator & ... on 5 July, 2018
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 05th July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 3789/2015
DELHI SIMLA CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Bajaj and Mr.Soayib
Qureshi, Advts.
versus
LT. GOVERNOR CUM ADMINISTRATOR & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, standing counsel for
LAC/L&B.
Mr.Alamgir, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings initiated in respect of the land of petitioner comprised in
Khasra no.34, measuring 200 sq. yds. situated in the revenue estate of
village Okhla, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the subject land‟) are
deemed to have 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 the „2013 Act‟),
as the compensation has not been tendered although physical
possession has been taken.
2. It is submitted that a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued
on 13.07.2000, a Section 6 declaration was made on 27.06.2001.
Thereafter, an Award bearing no.7/1/2003-04/DC (S) was rendered on
20.07.2007.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC in which the title of the
petitioner has been challenged. However, it is stated that compensation
appears not to have been paid. Learned counsel for the LAC relies on
para 4 of the counter affidavit, which we reproduce below:
"4. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as
the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from the
Hon‟ble Court as much as the actual vacant physical
possession of khasra number 34(5-09) was duly taken on
the spot on 14.6.2007 and handed over to DDA on the spot
by preparing possession proceeding on the spot. The
recorded owner never challenged the acquisition
proceeding and accepted the same whereas the petitioner is
claiming the relief of lapsing of 200 square yards on basis
of GPA dated 27.02.1990 allegedly executed by Mohd.
Nawab and Madan Lal claiming to be the owner, occupier
whereas revenue record does not reflect the names of both
the alleged sellers. The petitioner be directed to furnish the
complete chain of documents to claim the relief of 200 sq.
yards. The compensation appears to be unpaid."
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner would
be covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Govt. of
NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust and another, reported in 2017
(6) SCC 751 wherein definition of „interested person‟ has been given,
more particularly, 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."
5. Additionally, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
claiming compensation and also prays that the question of title may be
kept open as per the view expressed by this Court in the case of
Parshotam Joshi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C)
4255/2016 decided on 8th November, 2017, wherein a decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Solanki v.
Delhi Development Authority and Ors. W.P.(C) 1999/2015 decided
on 24th January, 2017 so also a subsequent decision of this Court in
the case of Dhannu v. Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
W.P.(C) 3158/2015 decided on 16th November, 2017 were followed.
6. Counsel for respondent no.4 submits that the land has been handed
over to Jamia Milia Islamia University and the same has been put to
use. He further submits that the entire payment has been made to the
DDA.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
8. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC leaves no room for
doubt that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and
thus, one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are
accordingly met.
9. Having regard to the fact that the compensation has not been tendered
to the petitioner and since the Award having been announced more
than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the case
of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act and thus, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
with regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is
ordered accordingly. However, as agreed, petitioner would only be
entitled for compensation, which shall be paid to him within one year
from today.
10. In above terms, the writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 05, 2018
rb
