Delhi High Court
Shri Prakash And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 March, 2018
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgement: 8th March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11181/2015
SHRI PRAKASH & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms. Jyoti Tyagi Adv. for L&B/LAC.
Mr. M.K. Singh Adv. for DDA.
Mr. Pushkar Sood & Mr. Rahul Keshav
Advocates for DMRC.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar CGSC for Union of
India/Respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S. SISTANI, J. (Oral)
1. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is set down
for final hearing and disposal.
2. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by
the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings with respect land bearing Khasra No. 490(01-01),
measuring 01 Bighas 01 Biswa, situated in the revenue estate of
village Madanpur Khadar, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred as the 'subject land') stand 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 physical possession
of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been paid
to the petitioners.
3. In the present case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued
on 23.06.1989 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on
22.06.1990. Thereafter, an award bearing no.20/1992-93 was
passed on 19.06.1992.
4. Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that as the physical possession of the subject land has not been
taken and compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, the
petitioners would be entitled to a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings have lapsed. Reliance is placed on Section 24 (2) of
the 2013 Act.
5. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, counsel for the LAC submits that actual vacant
physical possession of the subject land was taken on 03.12.2012
and handed over to the DDA, and the compensation amount in
respect thereof has been deposited in the Reference Court under
Section 30-31 of the Act, on 14.04.2014 on account of an
apportionment dispute. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit
filed by LAC reads as under:
"4. That the than Land Acquisition Collector passed
an Award No. 20/92-93 dated 19.6.92 and the actual
vacant physical possession of the land falling in
khasra number 490 (01-01) was taken on 3.12.2012
after preparing Possession Proceeding on the spot
and was handed over to the beneficiary department
i.e. DDA immediately. The compensation of the same
was also sent to Reference Court u/s 30-31 of Act,
1894 on 14.4.2014 as there was an apportionment
dispute."
6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by DDA, relevant portion of
which reads as under:
"The physical possession of Kh.No.490(1-01) area
measuring 01Bigha-01Biswa of Village-Madanpur
Khadar has been handed over to DDA on 03.12.2012
by LAC through L&B Department Govt. of NCT of
Delhi. The vacant physical possession taken over land
has been handed over to DMRC on dated 08.01.2013.
The work of DMRC in progress at the site. The
compensation has already been sent to Land Building
Department, GNCTD vide cheque No. 887574 dated
28.08.1990 of Rs. 10 Crores by DDA for
Channelization of Yamuna River Scheme."
7. Counter affidavit has also been filed by DMRC, relevant portion of
which reads as under:
" That it is submitted that the possession of the Land
measuring 2,27,978.52 sqm was given to DMRC on
08.01.2013."
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed by LAC, DDA
and DMRC, it is clear that the actual physical possession of the
subject land was taken over by LAC on 03.12.2012 and handed
over to the DDA. The possession of the subject land was further
transferred by the DDA to the DMRC on 08.01.2013 and the same
has been utilized for construction of the Kalindi Kunj Metro Depot.
Accordingly, the submission made by the counsel for the
petitioners that actual physical possession of the subject land has
not been taken is without any force. As far as payment of
compensation is concerned, learned counsel for LAC submits that
on account of an apportionment dispute, the compensation amount
was sent to Reference Court on 14.4.2014. Since the compensation
has not been paid to the petitioners and is deposited in the
Reference Court post coming into force of the 2013 Act, we are of
the considered view that the necessary ingredients for the
application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, stands satisfied.
10. Resultantly, applying the law laid down to the facts of the present
case, since the award having been announced more than five years
prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the fact that the
compensation has been sent to Reference Court under Section 30-
31 of the Act post coming into force of the 2013 Act, 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. However, as
the possession of the subject land has been taken over and the land
has been put to use, the petitioners, would only be entitled to
compensation as per the New Act. Compensation be released
within one year from today. It is ordered accordingly.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
MARCH 8, 2018
