Delhi High Court
Ashu And Anr vs Lt Governor Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 20 July, 2018
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgement: 20th July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 03/2017 & C.M. No. 40/2017
ASHU AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar with Ms. Sunanda
Tulya, Advocates.
Versus
LT GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocates for L&B/LAC.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan Standing Counsel for
DDA with Ms. Komal, Ms. Gauri & Ms.
Kajri, Advocates.
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 Constitution of India filed by
the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to land bearing Khasra No.58/16(0-14),
total measuring 14 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village
Prehlad Pur Bangar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject
land') is 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 '2013 Act') as neither the actual physical possession of the
subject land has been taken nor the compensation in respect thereof
has been paid to the petitioners.
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on
21.03.2003 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on
19.03.2004. Thereafter, an award bearing no.06/2005-06/DC(N-W)
was passed on 12.7.2005.
3. Mr. Akhil Sachar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
since the actual physical possession of the subject land has not
been taken and compensation in respect thereof has not been paid,
thus the petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section
24 (2) of the 2013 Act.
4. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC submits that out of
the total land measuring 4 Bighas 16 Biswas possession of 1 Bigha
16 Biswas of the subject land has been taken, however the amount
of compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. Para.5 of the
counter affidavit filed by LAC reads as under :-
"That the present writ petition is barred by the
principles of limitation as the actual physical
possession of the subject land falling khasra number
58/16 (1-16) out of total land measuring (4-16) in
revenue village Prehlad Pur Bangar was duly taken
on 26.8.2005 and handed over to the requisition
agency i.e. DDA on the spot by preparing possession
proceedings on the spot as the purpose of the
acquisition was implementation of the Rohini
Residential Scheme. The petitioner have been
claiming the relief of only 14 biswa, however the
petitioners never turned up to claim compensation."
5. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, learned Counsel for DDA submits that 1
Bigha 16 Biswas land out of 4 Bigha and 16 Biswas has been
handed over by LAC/L&B Department on 31.08.2005 and which
was further handed over to AE/RPD-IV for Rohini Residential
Scheme. Para 7 of the Counter Affidavit filed by DDA is as under:-
"The physical possession of the aforesaid land
admeasuring 1 Bigha 16 Biswas out of land bearing
Khasra No. 58//16 (4-16) of Village Prahladpur
Bangar acquired vide Award No. 6/2005-06 has been
duly handed over by the LAC/L&B Department to the
DDA on 31.08.2005, which has further been handed
over to AE/RPD-IV on the same very day on
31.08.2005 for Rohini Residential Scheme. Possession
of remaining land admeasuring 3.00 was not handed
over by the LAC/L&B Deptt. to the DDA due to built
up structure."
6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the LAC has opposed the petition on
the ground that the petitioners are claiming relief based on General
Power of Attorney, Will, receipt etc. which cannot confer title of
the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Akhil Sachar learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that as far as objection with regard to the
ownership and title is concerned, the 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.
8. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
9. Having regard to the observation made by the Apex Court in the
case of Manav Dharma Trust (Supra), in our view the objection
raised by Mr. Jain, learned Standing Counsel for LAC/L&B is
misplaced. 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. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by LAC makes it abundantly
clear that possession of only 14 Biswas of land out of 4 Bighas 16
Biswas in Khasra No. 58//16 at Village Prehladpur Bangar has
been taken but the compensation in respect of the entire land has
not been tendered.
11. Taking into consideration the submissions made and the stand
taken by LAC that only part possession of the subject land has
been taken and the compensation has not been tendered to the
petitioners, we are of the considered view that the necessary
ingredients of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act stand satisfied. Since the
award having been announced more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and, having regard to the fact that
the compensation has not been tendered, the petitioners are entitled
to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under
the Act with regard to the subject land is deemed to have been
lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
12. However we make it clear that this order would not confer any title
on the petitioners. The question of title of the subject land is left
open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
C.M. No. 40/17 (Stay)
1. In view of the order passed in the writ petition the present
application is rendered infructuous.
2. Application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 20, 2018
//gr
