Delhi High Court
Daya Kishan vs Union Of India And Anr on 31 July, 2018
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgement: 31s July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 7520/2017 & C.M. No. 31007/2017
DAYA KISHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Anil Kumar, Adv
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain, Adv for
LAC/L&B
Mr Pawan Mathur, 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 is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by
the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra
No.31/33, total measuring 1 Bigha, situated in the revenue estate of
village Tikri Kalan, Delhi (hereinafter referred 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 '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 petitioner.
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on
12.02.1987 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on
26.02.1987. Thereafter, an award bearing no.11/1988-89 was
passed on 10.02.1989.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 neither
possession of the subject land has been taken nor the amount of
compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Para.5 of the counter
affidavit filed by LAC reads as under :-
"That it is submitted that the lands of village Tikri
Kalan were notified vide Notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 12.02.1987
which was followed by the Notification under Section
6 of the Act dated 26.02.1987. The Award was also
passed vide Award No. 11/1988-89 dated 10.02.1989.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
benefit for the 1 bigha in Khasra 31//33 however the
possession of the same could not be taken nor the
compensation has been paid."
5. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the LAC has opposed the petition on
the ground that the petitioner is claiming relief based on General
Power of Attorney, Will, receipt etc. which cannot confer title on
the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that as far as objection with regard to the
ownership and title is concerned, the case of the petitioner 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.
7. Mr. Pawan Mathur, learned Counsel for DDA submits that the land
has not been requisitioned by the DDA and therefore, the petition
is liable to be dismissed qua the DDA. Relevant para 3(b) of the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the DDA reads as under:-
"I say that the land in question has not been
requisitioned by the respondent no. 2 - Delhi
Development Authority and therefore the present
petition is liable to be dismissed qua the DDA."
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 neither physical possession of the subject land has been
taken nor compensation has been tendered.
11. Having regard to the submissions made and the categorical
assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by the LAC that
neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation has
been tendered, and since the award having been announced more
than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, we are
of the considered view that the necessary ingredients of Section
24 (2) of 2013 Act stand satisfied. The petitioner is entitled to a
declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act
with regard to the subject land are 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 petitioner. 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. 31007/2017 (Stay)
14. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the present
application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 31, 2018
SU
