Delhi High Court
Phoolwati & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 July, 2018
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 30th July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1543/2018
PHOOLWATI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms.Shruti Munjal, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, standing counsel for
LAC/L&B with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, adv.
Mr.Arjun Mahajan, Mr.Arjun Pant
and Mr.Suhail Buttan, Advts. 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 petitioners 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 nos.97/10 and 97/1, measuring 4553 sq. yds. situated in the
revenue estate of village Karela, 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 actual possession of the
subject land has been taken nor compensation has been tendered to the
petitioners.
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 21.03.2003, a Section 6 declaration was made on 19.03.2004.
Thereafter, an Award bearing no.22/2005-06 was rendered on
02.01.2006.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC in which it is submitted
that possession of the subject land was taken on 21/23.02.2007 and
handed over to the DDA as the purpose of acquisition was Rohini
Residential Scheme. It is further submitted that the recorded owner
never turned up to claim compensation and the same is lying unpaid as
he/she apparently sold the land through unauthorized modes of
transfer. Counsel contends that the petitioners are not the recorded
owners of the subject land but are claiming the relief on basis of
GPA/Agreement to sell/Will etc. and thus it does not confer any right,
title or interest on the petitioners. Learned counsel for the LAC relies
on paras 5 & 6 of the counter affidavit, which we reproduce below:
"5. That the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the physical possession of the lands which
became the subject matter of the present writ petition was
taken way back on 21-23.2.2007 with the help of
demolition squad and handed over to the requisition
agency on the spot as the purpose of acquisition was
Rohini Residential Scheme. The petitioner did not
challenge the same at the relevant time hence the present
petition is highly barred by limitation. The contention of
the petitioners that they were not paid/offered the
compensation is not tenable as they never submitted any
documents with the office of the answering respondent to
claim their respective right for seeking compensation for
subject land.
6. That it is submitted that the lands of village Karala
were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 21.3.2003 which was followed
by the Notification under section 6 of the Act dated
19.3.2004. The Award was also passed vide Award
No.22/2005-06 dated 02.01.2006 and the possession of the
lands falling in khasra number 97//1 (4-16) and 97//10 (3-
02) was also taken in the year 2007 itself on the spot and
handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing
possession proceedings on the spot. The recorded owner
never turned up to claim compensation and the same is
lying unpaid, as he/she apparently sold the lands through
unauthorized modes of transfer. It is further submitted that
after the possession was taken of the lands notified under
the said Award from the recorded owners/petitioners
herein, the acquisition proceedings became complete, final
and binding as the petitioners thereafter never challenged
the same before any Court of law."
4. In response to the submission made by counsel for the LAC that the
petitioners are not the recorded owners of the subject land, Ms.
Munjal, counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the
petitioners 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, which
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. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
6. The objections raised by the counsel for the LAC with regard to the
maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of locus standi is
without any force in view of the observations made by the Apex Court
in the case of Manav Dharma Trust and another(supra).
7. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC leaves no room for
doubt that the 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 and thus, the petitioners are 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. We have not expressed any opinion on the title of the parties. The
question of title of the subject land is left open to be decided in the
appropriate court of jurisdiction.
10. In above terms, the writ petition stands disposed of.
C.M.6321/2018 (stay)
11. The application stands disposed of, in view of the order passed in the
writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 30, 2018/rb
