Delhi High Court
Rajesh Wadhwa vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 March, 2018
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 05th March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 111/2017
RAJESH WADHWA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.N.S.Vasisht and
Mr.M.P.Bhargava, Advts.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC
with Mr.Kamaldeep, Adv. for UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Jyoti Tyagi,
Advts. for LAC/L&B.
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 is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed
by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings initiated with respect to 1 bigha (1008 sq. yards) of
agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.941/623 situated in revenue
estate of Village Maidan Garhi, NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as „the subject land‟) is deemed to have lapsed as neither physical
possession has been taken nor compensation has been tendered to the
petitioner. Reliance is placed on 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‟).
2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the LAC as also by the Delhi
Development Authority (DDA).
3. As per the counter affidavits which have been filed, the petitioner has
no locus standi to file the present writ petition or claim benefit of
Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act as the compensation stands already
paid to the recorded owners, namely, Bhim Singh, Hukum Chand,
Bhaan Singh and Mehar Singh in the year 1987. It is also the case of
the LAC that the physical possession of the land has been taken. The
DDA has also stated in the counter affidavit that the possession was
taken on 16.07.1987.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
5. Paragraph 3 (k) of the counter affidavit filed by the DDA reads as
under:
"3. (k) ....After Notifications under Sections 4 & 6, the land
was acquired vide Award No.23/1987-88. The physical
possession of the land was handed over to the DDA by the
LAC/L&B Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on
16.7.1987. Copy of the possession proceedings is annexed
as ANNEXURE-1. It is further submitted that amount of
compensation of Rupee One Hundred Crores only was
remitted by the Central Government to L&B Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi on account of compensation of 13
South Delhi Villages including Village Maidan Garhi. The
amount of the compensation of the acquired land has been
withdrawn by the original owners of the land vide Cheque
No.81019 dated 31.08.87 as per Statement „A‟ provided by
the Land Acquisition Collector, which is annexed as
ANNEXURE-2."
6. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC would
also be relevant for the purposes of deciding this writ petition and the
same are reproduced below:
"4. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
as the petitioners are not the recorded owner of the subject
land falling in khasra number 941/623 but are claiming the
relief of 1 Bigha on basis of Agreement to Sell dated
05.12.2016. The petitioners do not have any sale deed got
executed but have filed the present writ petition in their own
individual names, thus the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
5. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
as the petitioners tried to get the subject land purchased
through Agreement to Sell executed on 05.12.2016 whereas
the Award No.23/87-88 came to be passed much earlier and
the recorded owners even received the compensation in the
year 1987 itself as the actual vacant physical possession of
the subject land was duly taken on the spot on 16.07.1987 on
the spot and was handed over to the DDA on the spot by
preparing possession proceeding on the spot. The
compensation for the undivided share for the said land for a
sum of Rs.4,55,225/- have been paid to recorded owners
namely Bhim Singh vide cheque number 81084 dated
10.9.1987, Rs.151741.68 each in the name of Hukum
Chand, Bhaan Singh and Mehar Singh respectively vide
cheque numbers 81010, 81020 and 81029 dated 31.8.1987
respectively."
7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner being the subsequent purchaser would fall in the larger
definition of an „interested person‟. Counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and
another, reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751. He also contends that the
physical possession of the land has not been taken and thus, he would
be entitled to the relief so claimed. The submission of counsels for the
LAC and DDA is that the petitioner cannot be termed as an „interested
person‟ and the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) would not
apply to the facts of the present petition for the reason that the
petitioner is not the recorded owner of the subject land. The counsel
for the DDA has strongly contended that the physical possession has
been taken over as far back as in the year 1987.
8. The question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the
petitioner can be termed as an „interested person‟ and secondly,
whether the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) would apply to the
facts of the present case.
9. Section 24(2) of 2013 Act reads as under :
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall
be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-
(1) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the
said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the
land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid
the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with
the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not
been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under
section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
10. Reading of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act would show that the acquisition
proceedings would deem to have lapsed in case the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not
been tendered.
11. In the present case, as per the documents placed on record i.e.
statement „A‟ and the details provided by the LAC would show that
the recorded owners have been paid the compensation as far back as in
the year 1987. As far as possession is concerned, the consistent stand
taken by both, the LAC and the DDA, is that the physical possession
was taken as far back as in the year 1987. In our view, the case of
Manav Dharma Trust (supra) would not come to the aid or rescue of
the petitioner for the reason that neither the recorded owner had, at any
point of time, contested that the compensation had not been tendered
nor that the physical possession was not taken. The present case stands
on a completely different footings than the facts in the case of Manav
Dharma Trust (supra). The petitioner has purchased the subject land
only in the year 2016 which seems only to derive benefit of Section 24
(2) of 2013 Act.
12. Since the physical possession has been taken by the DDA and
compensation has been tendered, we find no merit in this writ petition.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
MARCH 05, 2018/rb
