Delhi High Court
Jai Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 March, 2018
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 20th March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2387/2016 & C.M.10226/2016
JAI SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Mr.Harpreet
Singh & Mr.Mool Chand
Verma, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Shubhra Parashar & Dr. G.L.
Bhatia, Advs. for UOI/respondents
no.1 and 2.
Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate for R-4
& R-5.
Ms.Renuka Arora, Adv. for DSIIDC.
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 petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to their respective lands, are deemed to have lapsed as
actual physical possession of the land has not been taken.
2. The petitioners claim to be the co-owners of land bearing Khasra
No.80//16/1, 16/2, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25 in the revenue estate of Village
Sultanpur Dabas, Delhi. The respective individual landholding of the
petitioners is detailed below:
W.P. (C) No.2387/2016 Page 1 of 11
Sl.No. Petitioner Khasra No. Share
1. Petitioner No.1 80//16/1 2-01
(Jai Singh) 16/2 2-15
1/3 share of lands 17 4-16
18 4-16
Petitioner No.2 23 4-16
2.
(Satyawan) 24 4-16
1/3 share of lands 25 4-16
Petitioner no.3
3. (Kanta Devi)
1/6 share of lands
4. Petitioner no.4
(Krishna Devi)
1/6 share of lands
3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued on 25.08.2005 and a
Section 6 declaration was made on 10.07.2006. Thereafter an Award
bearing no.1/2008-2009 for village Sultanpur Dabas, Delhi was
rendered on 25.04.2008
4. Mr.Rajesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioners submits that although
compensation stands paid to the respective petitioners but the
petitioners continue to enjoy the actual physical possession over the
subject land. Reliance is placed on Section 24 (2) Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the „2013 Act‟)
in support of his submission that the onus to prove that actual physical
possession was taken is on the LAC whereas the LAC has failed to
W.P. (C) No.2387/2016 Page 2 of 11
discharge its onus to show that actual physical possession was taken as
per law. He submits that reliance placed on the Kabza Karyawahi can
be of no benefit to the respondents as the Kabza Karyawahi does not
establish that the notice was given to the land owners prior to taking
possession over the land which was in cultivatory possession of the
petitioners. It is contended that this is a mandatory requirement and in
the absence of the respondents having complied with the same, it cannot
be said that the physical possession of the land was taken by the
respondents and thus, the case of the petitioners would be covered
under the provisions of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act as one of the two
contingencies mentioned in the said provision has not been complied
with. Elaborating his arguments further, Mr.Gupta submits that the
LAC has miserably failed to discharge the onus of having taken actual
physical possession as the LAC has not complied with the settled
provisions of law and the judgments of the Supreme court wherein the
term „actual physical possession‟ and the manner in which possession is
to be taken have been elaborately discussed. Mr.Gupta also contends
that merely because the petitioners have executed documents to show
that actual physical possession was taken, that would not bind the
petitioners and the said documents would not come in the way of the
rights of the petitioners in view of the 2013 Act. Mr.Gupta further
contends that series of documents signed by the petitioners giving up all
their rights to challenge the acquisition proceedings in future were
signed prior to coming into effect of the 2013 Act and the effect of the
2013 Act is that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the subject
lands would automatically lapse in the absence of the LAC having
W.P. (C) No.2387/2016 Page 3 of 11
produced any document to show that they had taken actual physical
possession of the subject lands in September, 2011.
5. Learned counsels appearing for the LAC and DSIIDC have jointly
opposed this petition. It is contended that physical possession has been
taken on 11.08.2008 and compensation stands paid to the land owners
on 31.12.2008. Learned counsels further submits that not only the
petitioners have received compensation in terms of the Act but they
have also availed the benefit of Special Rehabilitation Package and
received payments which are not disputed or denied. Additionally,
counsels contend that at no point of time the petitioners have alleged
that they signed the documents under coercion, pressure or undue
influence or without knowing or understanding the contents of the
documents. Counsels also contend that the signatures on the documents
have also not been disputed till date and thus, the petitioners are
estopped from raising the contentions so raised before this Court.
Counsels also submit that since the acquisition proceeding were
completed i.e. possession has been taken and compensation has been
paid, there was no occasion for the acquisition proceedings to have
lapsed by coming into force of 2013 Act. Counsels also contend that
the question so raised is no longer res integra and has been specifically
dealt with in the case of Bhim Singh vs. Government of NCT of Delhi
& Another, W.P.(C) 9101/2014 and other writ petitions, which has also
been followed by this Bench as well.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. Arguments so raised by Mr.Gupta, counsel for the petitioners have been
dealt with in the case of Bhim Singh (supra). It is also not disputed
W.P. (C) No.2387/2016 Page 4 of 11
before us that the petitioners have not only received the compensation
but have also received the Special Rehabilitation Package post the order
dated 01.10.2008 pertaining to the Special Rehabilitation Package,
which has been reproduced as under:
" GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
B-BLOCK: VIKAS BHAWAN: NEW DELHI.
No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/Vol.II/8226-44 Dated: 01-10-2008
ORDER
The government of the NCT of Delhi have taken into
consideration the general increase in prices of land and the
inequity of giving compensation based on the procedure followed
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the government
have decided to give a Special Rehabilitation Package for the
people affected by land acquisition in respect of the cases in
which the land acquisition awards have not been announced till
December 18, 2007, details of which are:-
1. The amount of compensation effective from December 18,
2007 would be discounted by Rupees 11.80 lakhs per acre per
year for those lands which were notified under section 4 for
acquisition in 2006 and 2005.
2. Though this Special Rehabilitation Package would involved
additional funds for making payment of compensation to the
farmers, the amount would be recovered while determining the
cost of land allotted to other government agencies.
3. The other elements of the award namely solatium and interest
would be allowed as per rules.
4. The Special Rehabilitation Package would not be treated as
precedent for the future.
5. The payment of compensation should be done in a time bound
manner.
6. The package would apply to all agricultural lands.
7. The Special Rehabilitation Package should be accepted by
individual farmers and made applicable in each case only, if
they do not mount a challenge to the award already announced
by the LAC. If they have challenged the award they must
withdraw the petition to avail of the benefit of the Special
Rehabilitation Package.
Sd/-
( G.S. MEENA )
Addl. Secretary (L&B) "
8. The petitioners accepted the rehabilitation package and received
additional payments thereunder, vide cheques, details of which are
given below:
Sl.No. CHEQUE NO. DATE AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
1 295608 and 295609 21.11.2011 22,20,150/-
2 295558 21.11.2011 44,40,301/-
3. 295559 21.11.2011 44,40,301/-
9. The petitioners also submitted applications and undertakings for
availing and receiving payments under the said package and a sample
affidavit and undertaking of one of the petitioners is reproduced as
under:
"BEFORE THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTION
(NORTH-WEST) KANJHAWALA, DELHI.
VILLAGE : SULTANPUR
DABAS
AWARD NO.01/2008-09
Sub: Application for payment of Rehabilitation Package in
pursuance of order passed by NCT of Delhi vide its order
No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/Vol.II/82-26-44 dated 01.10.2008 In
respect of land bearing Kh.No.80/15/2m (0-14), 16/1 (2-01), 16/2
(2-15), 17 (4-16), 18 (4-16), 23 (4-16), 24 (4-16), 25 (4-16)
situated in Village Sultanpur Dabas, Delhi on behalf of (1)
Sh.Jai Singh s/o Sh.Bhagmal (2) Sh.Satyawan s/o Pratap Singh,
(3) Smt.Kanta Devi w/o Anand Singh and (4) Smt.Krishna w/o
Sh.Naresh Kumar.
Sir,
It is submitted as under:-
1. That the land bearing kh.No. 80/15/2 m (0-14), 16/1 (2-01),
16/2 (2-15), 17 (4-16), 18 (4-16), 23 (4-16), 24 (4-16), 25 (4-
16) situated in the revenue estate of village Sultanpur Dabas,
Delhi has been acquired and possession of above said land
has also been taken by the Govt. through LAC from the
present applicant.
2. That I have also been received the compensation of above
said land as per the Award so far as my share in the land is
concerned under protest.
3. That the above said land is free from all encumbrances, court
case, dispute and after examination of all aspects I was paid
the compensation of my share in the above said land. Hence
I/we am entitled to receive the rehabilitation package amount
with interest of the above said land.
4. That I undertake and declare that necessary
undertaking/declaration as per clause 7 of the NCT Delhi
order No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/Vol.II/82-26-44 dated
01/10/2008 I/we will submit at the time of receiving the
payment of Rehabilitation Package.
It is, therefore, prayed that the payment of Rehabilitation
Package be kindly released in favour of the present applicants in
accordance with the order of NCT, Delhi vide order dated
01-10-2008, in the interest of justice.
Thanking you in ancticipation.
DATE Yours faithfully,
DELHI
Name:-
(1) SATYAWAN
(2) JAI SINGH
S/o Sh.Bhagmal
R/o Sultanpur Dabas, Delhi
(3) KANTA
(4) KRISHNA
"UNDERTAKING FOR PAYMENT OF SPECIAL
REHABILITATION PACKAGE
I, Kanta w/o Anand Singh R/o Village Halalpur, Distt.Sonipat,
Haryana do hereby undertake as under:-
1. That my land bearing Khasra number Khasra No.80//16/1,
16/2, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25 & 80/15/2 total area measuring 29
bigha 09 biswa, having as per record share in the revenue
estate of village Sultanpur Dabas was notified u/s 4 of LA Act
vide notification No.F 7(24)/2004/L&B/LA/6420 dated
25/08/2005 and u/s 6 of L.A. Act, vide declaration dated
1/07/2006.
2. That my above said land was acquired by the GNCTD vide
Award No.1/2008-09 and market value was fixed at Rs._____
per Acre alongwith other statutory benefits under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. That whereas on representations made by the farmers the
Government has announced a Special Rehabilitation Package
dated 01/10/2008 which, I hereby accept. I have fully
understood the contents of the Special Rehabilitation Package
offered by the Government and shall abide by the same.
4. That I have already received the compensation awarded by the
LAC vide the aforesaid award.
5. That now I am fully satisfied of my own free will and without
any force, pressure, misunderstanding and inducement with
the compensation including Special Rehabilitation Package
being given to me by the Government in lieu of compulsory
acquisition of my land.
6. That before the offer of Special Rehabilitation Package I have
filed reference petition under section 18 of LA Act after
receiving the compensation under protest, which is diarised at
Sl. No.2034/NT/LAC dated 6/02/2009 with the LAC (N-W)
office.
7. That as I have agreed to receive the compensation on my own
free will and consent alongwith the amount of Special
Rehabilitation Package and after being fully satisfied with the
total amount of compensation offered for my land my
reference u/s 18 of LA Act shall not be sent to Reference
Court for adjudication, and the same shall be treated as
withdrawn.
8. That I undertake not to agitate and raise any claim in respect of
compensation and other related benefits in any Court of law or
authority / authorities at any point of time. This shall be
acceptable to my successors, legal representatives, legal heirs
and assignees as well. In the eventuality of my having
preferred any appeal before any Court of law I shall withdraw
the same and submit proof of it before claiming Special
Rehabilitation Package.
9. That I further undertake not to challenge the terms and
condition of Special Rehabilitation Package before any Court
of law or authority or authorities at any point of time. This
shall also be acceptable to my successors, legal
representatives, legal heirs and assignees as well.
10. That on my above undertaking and acceptance of
compensation including Special Rehabilitation Package, all
my rights qua the acquired land shall cease. Hence no cause of
action shall arise for agitating the matter in any court of law,
or authority or authorities. I may, therefore, be disbursed the
rehabilitation package towards full and final settlement in
respect of my acquired land.
Deponent
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on 3r d day of September, 2011 that the
contents of my above undertaking are true and correct and I
have signed and verified the same after fully understanding
the contents and implications of Special Rehabilitation
Package, I have no concealed any material fact there from.
Deponent"
9. Based on the affidavits and undertakings, it would leave no room for
doubt that the petitioners had accepted the compensation including
Special Rehabilitation Package and had given up all rights of challenge
in any court of law much prior to coming into force of the 2013 Act.
10. Mr.Gupta has laboured hard to convince this Court that the onus was on
the LAC to show that the actual physical possession was taken and law
laid down by the Supreme Court giving mandatory directions with
regard to the manner in which possession has to be taken has been
ignored. In our view, this argument is not open to the petitioners as the
petitioners have not disputed that possession has not been taken. Such
an argument would be open only to those petitioners who contest that
actual physical possession was not taken or given by them. In this case,
once the petitioners themselves have admitted that actual physical
possession was taken, it does not lie for the petitioners either to raise a
ground or to contest that the LAC must discharge its onus. In our view,
once the land owner himself has admitted that possession was taken,
nothing further would be required to show that possession was taken,
more so, where not only compensation has been paid to the petitioners,
the petitioners have also availed of Special Rehabilitation Package and
received additional payments and thus, divested themselves of all rights
in respect of the acquired land.
11. For the reasons stated above, we find no merits in the writ petition. The
writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
MARCH 20, 2018
rb
