Delhi High Court
Ram Babu vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 March, 2018
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15th March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 835/2016
RAM BABU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout and Mr. Aman
Mehrotra, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Jha, Mr. Kushal Raj Tater and
Mohd Suieb, Advocates for L&B/
LAC.
Mr. Padam Kant Saxena, Mr. Deepak
Dahiya and Ms. Aayushi Saxena,
Advocates for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land of petitioner
comprised in Khasra no.1180 measuring (0-4), situated in the revenue
estate of village Naraina, New 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 the „2013 Act‟).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 4 notification
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟)
was issued in this case on 13.11.1959, a declaration under Section 6
was made on 02.01.1969. Thereafter, an Award bearing no.32/79-80
was rendered on 12.02.1980. It is the case of the petitioner that on a
reference made under Sections 30-31 of the Act bearing LAC
no.14/09/82 on 28.01.1982, the claim under Sections 30-31 of the Act
was decided by the Court of ADJ with respect to 13 biswas of land out
of a total 17 biswas of land. It is the case of the petitioner that neither
compensation with respect to the balance 4 biswas has been tendered
nor physical possession has been taken as the area is built -up.
Reliance is placed on the observations made by the Court of ADJ
while deciding the reference petition, more particularly, para 56,
which is reproduced below:
"56. Issue No.2: Relief:
Land in question is 17 biswa. Compensation is deposited
with regard to 17 biswa of land. It has come on record that
possession of 4 biswa of land being a residential structure in
possession of IP No.9 has not been taken over till date.
Therefore, proportionate compensation only for 13 biswa of
land would be granted to IP No.9. The counsel for IP No.9
also agreed during arguments that compensation with regard
to 13 biswa be granted to IP No.9 as possession of 4 biswa
of land being built up residential structure is in possession
of IP No.9. Resultantly, it is ordered that IP No.9 would be
given compensation for 13 biswa of land and compensation
for 4 biswa of land along with accrued interest be sent back
to LAC."
3. Reliance is placed on the counter affidavit filed by the LAC in support
of the above submission.
4. Counsel for the LAC submits that out of a total area of 17 biswas,
possession of 4 biswa subject matter of the present writ petition could
not be taken as the area was built-up and the compensation could not
tendered. Similar stand is taken by the counsel for the DDA.
5. Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, reads as under:
"5. That as per the record the land in question i.e. khasra
No.1180/1/2(0-17) situated at the revenue estate of
village Naraina, Delhi was notified under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act on 13.11.1959 followed by
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
on 02.01.1969 for Planned Development of Delhi. In
pursuance of the said notification, notice under section 9
& 10 as provided under the Act, were issued to the
interested persons including the predecessor(s) in interest
of the present petitioners with respect to the abovesaid
land in question. The then Land Acquisition Collector
passed award No.32/79-80 of Village Naraina after
considering the claims of Claimants. It is pertinent to
mention here that due to built-up area the possession of
(0-04) Biswa was not taken in respect of above said
Khasra number."
6. Having regard to the fact that possession of the subject land bearing 4
biswas could not be taken over being built-up and 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
not been tendered to the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is covered
by the provisions for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
and thus, the petitioner is 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. It is ordered
accordingly.
7. The petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MARCH 15, 2018
pst
