Delhi High Court
Ram Prasad vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 8 March, 2018
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgement: 8th March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10868/2017, CM No. 44498/2017
RAM PRASAD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel with Mr. Lalit Kumar
Rawal, Advocates.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
L&B/LAC.
Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, 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 the Constitution of India
filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to (03-00) 1/24th share of the land
comprised in Khasra No. 89/3/1(07-16) and 89/3/2(64-05)
admeasuring 72 Bighas 01 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of
village Ghonda Gujran Khadar Shahdra, Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as 'the subject land') is 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 physical
possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has
been paid to the petitioner.
3. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this petition are
that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on
23.06.1989, a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
20.06.1990 and an Award bearing No.8/92-93 was passed on
19.6.1992.
4. Mr. Sunil K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken
and the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, the
petitioner would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act. He further submits that his submission is further
fortified by the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit.
Learned counsel further relies on 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, in response to
the stand taken by LAC in the counter affidavit that the petitioner
has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is not the
recorded owner. Reliance is placed on para 28 of this judgment
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. On the other hand, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC
raised an objection that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner
were not the recorded owner of the subject land and the Gaon
Sabha was shown as recorded owner in the revenue records, hence
the petitioner has not right on the subject land. Learned Counsel
further submits that the petitioner is claiming the benefits under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act based on GPA, will receipt etc which
cannot confirm title of the petitioner. In support of his submissions,
counsel for LAC relies on para 6 of the counter affidavit, which
read as under:
"6. That it is submitted that for purpose of planned
development of Delhi, the answering respondent
issued a Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 on 23.06.1989 which was followed by
Notification u/s 6 of the said Act dated 20.6.1990 for
planned development of Delhi for the acquisition of
the lands falling in village Ghonda Gujran Khadar.
That an Award No. 8/92-93 dated 19.6.1992 was also
passed and the actual vacant physical possession of
the subject land falling in khasra number 89/3/1 (7-
16) and 89/3/2(64-05) was taken on spot by preparing
possession proceedings dated 21.3.2007 and handed
over to the DDA on the spot whereas the
compensation was assessed in the name of Gaon
Sabha as the recorded owner of the subject land was
shown to be Gaon Sabha."
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither
physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor
compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Counsel has also
submitted that the objections of the LAC regarding locus standi of
the petitioner is misplaced in view of the observations made by the
Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust (supra) where the rights
of the subsequent purchaser have been recognised.
8. As far as the objection with regard to maintainability is concerned,
we find the same to be misplaced in view of the observations made
by the Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust
(supra). Accordingly, the submissions made by the counsel for the
LAC that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present
petition as he is the subsequent purchaser, holds no ground.
9. In relation to the objection raised by the counsel for the LAC with
regard to the land being vested in the Gaon Sabha is concerned, we
deem it appropriate to follow a decision rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Solanki Vs. Delhi
Development Authority and Ors, W.P. (C) 1999/2015, decided on
24.01.2017, paragraph 5 of which reads as under:-
"5. While we have declared that the subject
acquisition has lapsed, it is made clear that this would
not amount to giving title to the petitioner or
perfecting the petitioner's title inasmuch as Mr.Jain
has taken the plea in the counter-affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent no.2 that the Gaon Sabha has
been shown as the recorded owner. This fact is
disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But,
we are not entering into the controversy of title which
may be sorted out elsewhere. Insofar as the
acquisition is concerned, the same has lapsed because
neither physical possession was taken over nor
compensation was paid."
10. As per the counter affidavit filed by LAC, it leaves no room for
doubt that the possession of the subject land has been taken on
21.03.2007 which is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. As
far as payment of compensation is concerned, counsel for LAC
submits that the compensation with respect to 3 Bighas i.e. 1/24 th
share of the total land admeasuring 72 Bighas 01 Biswa comprised
in Khasra No. 89/3/1(07-16) and 89/3/2(64-05) has not been
tendered to the petitioner as being assessed in the name of Gaon
Sabha.
11. Having regard to the submissions made in the counter affidavit
filed by LAC that the compensation has not been paid in respect of
the entire area of the subject land and since the award has been
announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the
2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act that the acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Act with regard to that portion of the subject land in
respect of which compensation has not been paid, are deemed to
have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
12. However, we made it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
on the title of the subject land. 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. 44498/17 (Stay)
14. The application is disposed of in view of order passed in the writ
petition.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
MARCH 8, 2018//gr
