Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chander Dabas & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 July, 2018
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 27th July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9707/2015
RAMESH CHANDER DABAS & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Mr.Harpreet Singh,
Mr.Pranjal Saran, Ms.Shaheen and
Mr.M.C.Verma, Advts.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, standing counsel for
LAC/L&B with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv.
Mr.Arjun Pant, Adv. for DDA.
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 petitioners comprised in
Khasra no.25//12 (04-04) and 25//19 (04-16), situated in the revenue
estate of village Mubarakpur Dabas, 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 neither the compensation has been
tendered to the petitioners nor physical possession of the subject land
has been taken.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that notifications under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was
issued on 21.03.2003. Thereafter a Section 6 declaration was made on
19.03.2004. An Award bearing no.16/2005-06/DC-(NW) was
rendered on 14.09.2005. Counsel for the petitioners relies on counter
affidavit filed by the LAC, more particularly, paragraph 5 wherein it
has been averred that none had approached the LAC for accepting the
compensation.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the decision of the
Constitution Bench would have no bearing in the present case, as
admittedly, the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC. Para 5 of counter
affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:
"8. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as
the actual vacant physical partial possession i.e. (2-08) out
of the total land i.e. (4-16) falling in khasra number 25//19
has been taken by the answering respondent and handed
over to the DDA on the spot on 4.4.2006 by preparing
possession proceedings on the spot whereas left out land of
said khasra number i.e. (2-08) and land falling in khasra
number 25//12 (4-04) could not be taken. The petitioners
however never turned up to receive the compensation for
the land, the possession of which was taken, stated supra."
5. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC submits that part
possession i.e. (2-08) out of the total land i.e. (4-16) falling in Khasra
No.25//19 has been taken but possession with respect to the balance
land has not been taken. However, he fairly admits that the
compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner as the petitioners
never turned up to receive the same.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
7. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC leaves no room for
doubt that no compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and
thus, one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act is
accordingly met.
8. Having regard to the fact that the compensation has not been tendered
to the petitioners and since the Award having been announced more
than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the case
of the petitioners is covered by the provisions of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act, 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.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 27, 2018
rb
