Delhi High Court
Springdales Education Society vs Union Of India And Ors. on 19 March, 2018
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment: 19th March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 4943/2015 & CM No. 8939/2015
SPRINGDALES EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil K. Kher, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Kapil Kher and Ms. Namita
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetley, CGSC for
respondent no.1/ UOI.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan and
Ms. Kajri Gupta and
Ms.Mrinalini Sharma, Advocates 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 seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner forming
part of Khasra Nos. 1817 (4-16), 1818 (2 - 14), 1819 (4-6),
1820 (1-2), 1821 (4-16), 1822 (3-18), 1823 (2-1), 1832 (3-18),
1835 (4-16) and 1836 (4-16), totally measuring 37 Bighas
3 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Chattarpur,
Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') is deemed to
have lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in the 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 the compensation has been
tendered.
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter as the 'Old Act') was issued
on 25.11.1980 and Section 6 declaration was made on the
07.06.1985. Thereafter an Award bearing No. 15/87-88 was
passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 05.06.1987. It is
the case of the petitioner that neither the physical possession of
the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been
tendered to the petitioner.
3. Mr. Anil K. Kher, learned senior advocate for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is a society registered in the name of
Patel Education Society, in May 1956, under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The name of the society was
subsequently changed in the year 1999 to Springdales
Education Society. He also submits that the petitioner society is
a charitable and educational society formed with the objective
to propagate education. Mr. Kher further submits that as a part
of imparting education in agriculture, to make the students
aware about the rural life, in order to make them realize their
obligations towards the residents of the rural areas and to bridge
the gap between the rural and urban people, the petitioner has
set up an Experimental Work Experience Farm for its students.
He also submits that the land which is being used as an
Experimental Work Experience Farm, was purchased for the
benefit of the students.
4. Mr. Kher further submits that the petitioner society purchased
the subject land, measuring 37 Bighas 3 Biswas, situated in
village Chattarpur, during the years 1965 to 1972, by means of
six sale deeds as detailed below, copies of which have been
placed on record:-
S. Sale Deed Dated Khasra Area (Bigha-Biswas)
No. No.
1. 09th July, 1970 1818 2 - 14
2. 09th July, 1970 1819 4 - 06
1836 4 - 16
3. 22nd April, 1974 1820 1 - 02
1822 3 - 18
1823 2 - 01
4. 13th April, 1974 1835 4 - 16
5. 29th April, 1975 1832 3 - 18
6. 09th August, 1978 1817 4 - 16
1821 4 - 16
Total: 37 Bigha-03 Biswa or
Approx.
7 74 acres.
5. Mr. Anil K. Kher, learned senior advocate for the petitioner
submits that since the physical possession of the land has not
been taken, and the compensation in respect thereof has not
been tendered, the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration
under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Learned Counsel has also
handed over the copy of Ghirdwari in Court to show that
initially Patel Education Society was in cultivating possession.
Copy of Jama bandi has also been handed over in Court.
6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for LAC submits that the possession
of the subject land could not be taken on account of stay granted
by this Court. However, as per Statement 'A', the compensation
was not paid to the petitioner and the same was sent to the Court
of ADJ on 23.12.2013 by filing of CM (main). Relevant portion
of the counter affidavit filed by LAC reads as under:-
"8. That in the present case the Hon‟ble High
Court of Delhi in CWP No. 955/86 had granted the
stay against dispossession hence the possession of
the land in question was not taken, however, as per
the statement „A‟ the status of payment of
compensation is as under:-
Name Award Amount Remarks
No.
Veena Jain 15/87-88 354409.80
Sent to
ADJ on
Dev Raj 15/87-88 306802.62 27/12/2013
Chopra vide ch.
Patil 15/87-88 420590.63 No.
Education 456956
Society
Chaman Lal 15/87-88 557181.59
7. Mr. Anil K. Kher, learned senior advocate for the petitioner
submits that the deposit of amount in the Court of ADJ without
tendering the same to the petitioner at the first instance would
not discharge the respondent of its obligation to tender the
compensation to the petitioner. Mr. Kher, further submits that
there is no material on record to show that at any point of time
there was any dispute between the recorded owners which
would force the LAC to invoke Section 30 and 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and deposit the amount in the Court of
ADJ. He also submits that nothing prevented the respondents
from either taking physical possession or tendering
compensation to the petitioner after issuance of notification
under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the 2013
Act.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for LAC submits
that the petitioner did not come forward to collect the
compensation deposited in the Court of ADJ on 27.12.2013
(four days before the 2013 Act came into force).
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. In the case of, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma
Trust and another reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751, it has been
held in Para 28 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."
11. In our view the objection with regard to the ownership is
without any force as copies of the sale deeds have been placed
on record to show the ownership. Additionally, copies of the
Khasra Girdawaries and Jama Bandis have also been produced
in Court.
12. In view of the observations made above we are of the
considered opinion that the petitioner would fall within the
definition of the interested person and is thus entitled to the
relief claimed.
13. As far as deposit of compensation amount in the Court of ADJ
is concerned, the counter affidavit filed by LAC is completely
silent as to what prompted the LAC to deposit this amount in
the Court of ADJ four days before the 2013 Act was notified.
Also there is no material on record to show that this amount was
ever tendered to the petitioner and in turn declined by them.
14. Admittedly, in this case the compensation was not tendered to
the petitioner. Simply by filing a C.M.(M) and thereafter
depositing the amount in the court of Additional District Judge
(ADJ) would not amount to valid tender. An identical question
had come up for consideration in the case of Gyanender Singh
& Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 1393/2014 dated
23.09.2014. The relevant paragraphs 2 and 4 read as under:
"2. The learned counsel for the respondents contend
that possession of the subject lands were taken on
05.07.2013 and 17.07.2013 and this fact was informed
to this court in W.P.(C) No. 7057/2005 (Court On Its
Own Motion). Insofar as compensation is concerned, it
was contended on behalf of the respondents that the
amount of compensation was deposited in this court in
CM Main Nos. 1403/2013 and 1411/2013 on
30.12.2013. It was contended that as the District
Courts were closed for the vacation, the same could
not be deposited there and, therefore, the cheques
representing the amount of compensation were
deposited in this court in the above CM Main Nos.
1403/2013 and 1411/2013. Therefore, according to the
respondents, the compensation had been paid to the
petitioners prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.
Consequently, it was submitted that the acquisition
had been completed under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 as possession had been taken and compensation
had also been paid.
4. We are informed that after the passing of the said
order dated 30.12.2013, the cheques have been sent to
the concerned Additional District Judges as directed
by the learned Vacation Judge on 30.12.2013. It is
pertinent to note that in paragraph 6 of the said order
dated 30.12.2013 itself, the learned Vacation Judge
took care in noting that while the petitions were
disposed of, they were without prejudice of the rights
and contentions of the land owners. The learned Judge
also noted that the cheques tendered in the above
mentioned CM Main Nos. 1403/2013 and 1411/2013
and other similar petitions would be treated as a
tender to the court of the learned Additional District
Judge, Delhi as on 30.12.2013."
15. In our view, the present case is fully covered by the decision
rendered in the case of Gyanender Singh (supra) and we see no
reason to differ with the view taken in the aforesaid
matter. Nothing has been produced before us to show that there
was an inter se dispute and the respondents were prevented
from tendering the amount to the original owners. There is
nothing on record to show that the amount was tendered and
refused.
16. Taking into consideration the submissions made and the
categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC
that the compensation has not been paid 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 that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Act with regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed.
17. The writ petition stands disposed of.
CM APPL. No. 8936/2015(stay)
18. The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed
in the writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MARCH 19, 2018 //rd
