Delhi High Court
Shri Waryam Dass Khurana & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 July, 2018
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 30th July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9873/2017
SHRI WARYAM DASS KHURANA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Bhagwat Pershad Gupta and
Ms.Priyanka Aggarwal, Advts.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.K.Sharma, Adv. for LAC/L&B.
Mr.Ajay Verma, Sr.Standing counsel
for DDA with Mr.Shlok Chandra,
Adv.
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 petitioners comprised in
Khasra no.585, measuring 400 sq. yds. situated in the revenue estate of
village Karkardooma, 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 possession of the subject land has been
taken nor the compensation has not 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 13.11.1959, a Section 6 declaration was made on 14.06.1966.
Thereafter, an Award bearing no.54/1969-70 was rendered on
30.03.1970.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC in which the title of the
petitioner has been challenged. However, it is averred therein that
compensation has not been paid. Learned counsel for the LAC relies
on para 7 of the counter affidavit, which we reproduce below:
"7. That in the present case, the possession as well as
compensation of the above mentioned land has not been
made as per the records maintained by the answering
respondent. It is submitted that as per the revenue records
Sh.Gordan, Sh.Saligram, Sh.Nathu Ram, Sh.Om Prakash,
Sh.Nandu and Sh.Zile are the recorded owners of Khasra
No.585 (2-11). It is further submitted that the Sale Deeds
dated 11.01.1999 nowhere reflects the name of recorded
owners as mentioned in the revenue record. That in view
of the abovementioned facts and circumstances the
petitioner has no locus to file the present petition before
this Hon'ble Court.
4. 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 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. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
6. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC leaves no room for
doubt that neither the compensation has been paid to the petitioners
nor the possession of the subject land has been taken and thus, the
necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are accordingly
met.
7. 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. However, we make it clear that 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.
8. In above terms, the writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 30, 2018/rb
