Delhi High Court
Alok Mohan Kar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 March, 2018
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgement: 12th March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9706/2015
ALOK MOHAN KAR & ANR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S. Vasisht and Mr. M.P. Bhargava,
Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv. for
LAC/L&B Deptt.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
for DDA with Ms. Kajri Gupta,
Advocates.
Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Adv. for Union of
India.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (Oral)
1. Pleadings are complete. Accordingly, 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 to land bearing Khasra No. 926/759/596,
measuring 1 Bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Maidan
Garhi, 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 actual physical possession of the subject land has been
taken nor the compensation has been paid to the petitioners.
3. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition
are that a Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 25.11.1980.
Section 6 declaration was made on 18.06.1985. Thereafter an
Award bearing no. 23/87-88 was passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector on 17.06.1987.
4. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24
(2) of the 2013 Act. 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 petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition as
they are not the recorded owners. 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. Panda learned counsel for the LAC submits
that physical possession of the subject land has been taken on
16.07.1987 and compensation has been paid to the recorded owner
namely Sh. Ram Phal vide Cheque No. 81069 dated 09.09.1987.
He further submits that it is not open for the petitioners to dispute
the possession for the reason that the petitioners are the subsequent
purchaser and the possession was taken from the recorded owner to
whom compensation was also paid. Relevant Para(s) of the counter
affidavit filed by LAC reads as under:
"8. That in the present case, the possession of the land
in question was taken over and handed over to the
beneficiary department on 16.07.1987 and as per
Statement "A" compensation amounting to
Rs.10,52,884.69 was paid to the recorded owner
Sh. Ram Phal vide Ch. No. 81069 dated 09.09.1987.
Further the petitioner is not the recorded owner and
compensation has already been paid to the recorded
owner."
6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by DDA, relevant portion of
which reads as under:
The Physical possession of above land
Kh.Nos.926/759/596(4-18) of Village Maidangarhi
handed over to DDA by Land Acquisition Collector
(South) through Land & Building Department. Govt.
of NCT of Delhi on 16.07.87. The above Khasra Nos
is part of Tilpat Belly Biodiversity Park."
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that neither
physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor
compensation has been paid to the petitioners. Counsel has also
submitted that the objections of the LAC regarding locus standi of
the petitioners 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.
9. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by LAC makes it clear that
compensation was paid to the recorded owner Sh. Ram Phal vide
Cheque No. 81069 dated 09.09.1987. Accordingly, the submissions
made by the counsel for the petitioners that the compensation has
not been tendered to the petitioners is without any force. As far as
possession of the subject land is concerned, the counter affidavit
filed by LAC and DDA makes it clear that the possession of the
subject land has been taken on 16.07.1987. In our view it is not
open for the petitioners who claim to be the subsequent purchasers,
to raise the plea that the possession proceedings are not in
accordance with law for the reason that the person who received
the compensation, at no point complained that physical possession
has not been taken. This objection of the petitioners regarding
possession is highly belated and misplaced.
10. We are of the considered view that the judgement of the Supreme
Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) does not apply
to the facts of the present case for the reason that in this case the
physical possession has been taken on 16.07.1987 and
compensation has been paid to the recorded owner in the year
1987. In case the physical possession had been taken and
compensation having not been paid at all, in those circumstances,
the decision rendered in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra)
would come to the aid and rescue of the petitioners.
11. Having regard to the submissions made and the categorical
assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC as well by
DDA, that the possession of the subject land has been taken over
on 16.07.1987 and the compensation has been paid to the recorded
owner, we are of the considered view that the relief so claimed and
pressed before this Court by the petitioners cannot be granted.
12. Hence we are of the view that the present petition lacks merit and
is liable to be dismissed.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
MARCH 12, 2018
//gr
