Delhi High Court
Prem Kaur vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 July, 2018
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 26th July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 3356/2015 & C.M.6012/2015
PREM KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashwin Vaish, Mr.Vinod Pandey
and Mr.Kunal Awana, Advts.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Manish Mohan, CGSC for UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, standing counsel
LAC/L&B with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv.
Ajay Verma, senior standing counsel
for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner seeks a direction to quash the notification bearing
no.F(11)(17)/91 L&B/LA/6518 dated 28.04.1995 issued under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') as also the
notification bearing no.F.11(17)/91/L&B/LA/Pt.V/1285 dated
26.04.2013 issued under Section 6 of the Act.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are
that the petitioner claims to be owner and in possession of 1 bigha of
land comprised in Khasra no.273, situated in the revenue estate of
village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi. As per the petitioner the subject
land was purchased by means of a registered sale deed dated
14.06.1990 prior to the notifications having been issued. It is also
claimed that the land of the petitioner forms part of the unauthorized
colony, which has been issued a provisional certificate for
regularization known as Prahlad Vihar.
3. In this case, a notification under Sections 4 & 17 of the Act was issued
on 28.04.1995, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
26.04.1996. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notifications, similarly
situated land owners had filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court
being W. P. (C) 2326/2000 titled as "Bhupender Singh & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.".
4. It is also pointed out that vide order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the
Delhi High Court, the case of the land owners was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2007, various similarly situated
land owners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide CA No.
3514-3517/2007 and various other connected matters. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court issued notice and granted interim stay of the order
passed by the High Court of Delhi on 03.08.2007. By an order dated
21.03.2012, the Supreme Court quashed the declaration under Section
17 of the Act and directed the respondents to issue a notice under
Section 5A of the Act to the petitioners.
5. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the LAC issued a general public notice thereby
inviting objections under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioner
approached the LAC and filed objections in his individual capacity
and also through the Residents Welfare Association.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that a fresh declaration under Section 6
of the Act was made on 26.04.2013 after a lapse of the statutory
period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner additionally
submits that neither the possession of the land in question was taken
nor the compensation has been paid. He further submits that since the
fresh Section 6 notification was made after a lapse of more than one
year, the case of the petitioner would be covered by the decision
rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W. P. (C)
3049/2013 titled as Sunil Goel & Others Vs. The State and Others
decided on 29.04.2014 when batch of cases were decided. Reliance is
placed on para 18 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under :
"18. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners ought to be accepted. This is so because the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Padmasundara Rao (supra) covers the present case on
all fours. The very issue before the Supreme Court, as
pointed out by us earlier, was - whether, after the
quashing of a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act,
a fresh period of one year would be available to the State
Government to issue another declaration under Section 6.
This question has been answered by the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao
(supra) in the negative. In other words, when a Section 6
declaration is quashed, it does not give a fresh period of
one year to the Government to issue another Section 6
declaration. The Section 6 declaration, after such
quashing, if at all, can be issued only during the balance
period."
7. It is further pointed out that the case of Sunil Goel (Supra) has
attained finality as SLP preferred by the respondents stands dismissed
in limine.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the relevant
dates to draw the attention of the Court that the period of one year has
lapsed and fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act is delayed by
one year six months and eight days.
9. Mr. Jain submits that a fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act
was issued within a period of one year of the judgment rendered by
the Apex Court on 21.03.2012.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Two submissions have been made by counsel for the petitioner.
Firstly, that since a Section 6 notification was issued post the statutory
period of one year after deducting the period during which the
acquisition proceedings remain stayed. Secondly, it is contended
relying on the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit that
since neither the actual physical possession has not been taken nor
compensation has been tendered, the case of the petitioner would
squarely fall within the provisions 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').
12. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a notice dated
20.02.2015 issued to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Collector
to show that the Khasra numbers forming part of the present writ
petition were included and the same also finds mentioned in the list
filed at page 42 of the paper book.
13. The case of the petitioner is, in our view, fully covered by the decision
rendered in the case of Sunil Goel (Supra), wherein the Division
Bench has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Padmasundara Rao (supra). The details of the time period applicable
to the present case, is detailed below in the form of a chart.
Time Lapse
Date of Section 4 28.04.1995
notification
Date of stay granted by 15.10.1996 16 months 12 days
High Court
Date of dismissal from 09.07.2007
High Court
Date of Notice and stay by 03.08.2007 1 month 24 days
the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Date of decision by 21.03.2012
Hon'ble Supreme Court
quashing the declaration
u/s & urgency clause u/s 17
of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894
Declaration u/s 6 26.04.2013 1 year 1 month 1 day
Total time lapse 2 years 6 months 8 days
14. Considering the time line we have detailed hereinabove leaves no
room for doubt that the fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act
was not issued within a period of one year after deducting the time
spent in Court and covered by the stay order granted by the Court i.e.
before the stay granted by the High Court and 24 days from
03.08.2007 being the period of stay granted by the Supreme Court.
Even otherwise, as stated by the LAC in the counter affidavit neither
physical possession of the land has been taken nor compensation has
been paid. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The notification
dated 28.04.1995 under Section 4 of the Act and the fresh notification
dated 26.04.2013 under Section 6 of the act are quashed.
15. The writ petition stands disposed of.
C.M.No.6012/2015 (stay)
16. The application stands disposed of, in view of the order passed in the
writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 26, 2018
rb
