Delhi High Court
Padam Chand Kanodia vs Union Of India And Ors. on 3 October, 2018
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment: 3rd October, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2489/2015
PADAM CHAND KANODIA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Banati, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
LAC/L&B.
Mr. Danesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Gauri Chaturvedi 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 Constitution of India filed by
the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to 1 Bigha land of the Petitioner comprised in Khasra
No.49/3, situated in the revenue estate of village Prehlad Pur
Bangar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred 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
W.P.(C) 2489/2015 Page 1 of 5
as '2013 Act') as neither the actual physical possession of the
subject land has been taken nor the compensation in respect thereof
has been paid to the petitioner.
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on
21.03.2003 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on
19.03.2004. Thereafter, an award bearing no.06/2005-06 was
passed on 12.7.2005.
3. Mr. Ankit Banati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the actual physical possession of the subject land has not
been taken and compensation in respect thereof has not been paid,
the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24
(2) of the 2013 Act.
4. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC submits that
possession of Khasra No. 49//3 measuring 1 Bigha 10 Biswa has
been taken over, however the compensation has not been paid to
the petitioner. Relevant Para. of the counter affidavit filed by LAC
reads as under :-
"6. ...It is further submitted that the possession of the
measuring 1 Bigha 10 Biswa land has been taken on
31.08.2005 and handed over to the requisition agency
on the spot whereas the compensation of the same
also could not be paid to the recorded owners. It is
however submitted that the petitioner's name is
mention as khatedar in the khasra number under
reference i.e. 49//3."
W.P.(C) 2489/2015 Page 2 of 5
5. Counter Affidavit has also been filed by DDA. Relevant Para is as
under:-
"4(ii) Physical and legal possession of land of Khasra
No. 49/3 min (1-10) has duly, validly been handed over
to the answering Respondent by the LAC/L&B Deptt.
On 31.8.2005, while possession of land bearing
Khasra No. 49/3 (3-06) of village Prahlad Pur Bangar
was not handed over to the answering Respondent by
the land Acquisition Collector/Land and Building
Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi due to
existence of residential houses, factories, Kotha Jat
along with boundary wall etc. at site as per possession
proceedings dated 31.8.2005. Posession Proceedings
of village Prahlad Pur Banger dated 31.08.2005 in
respect of Award No. 06/2005-06 are ANNEXURE R-
1"
"(iii) An amount of Rs. 80,40,76,004/- was duly
remitted/disbursed to the LAC/Land & Building
Department on account of payment of compensation of
village Prahlad Pur Bangar vide cheque No. 074064
dated 09.08.2005 in respect of the land acquired vide
Award No. 06/05-06."
6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the LAC further submits that the
petitioner herein have not placed on record any document so as to
claim their rights, title or interest in the subject land, as that of
recorded owners.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ankit Banati learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that as far as objection with regard to the
ownership and title is concerned, the case would be covered by 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.
W.P.(C) 2489/2015 Page 3 of 5
8. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered their
rival submissions.
9. 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 observation made by the
Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust (supra) where the rights
of the subsequent purchaser have been recognized.
10. 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). We are of the considered view that, the submissions made
by the counsel for the LAC that the petitioner has no locus standi
to file the present petition as they are the subsequent owners of the
subject land, holds no ground.
11. Having regard to the submissions made in the Counter Affidavit
filed by LAC that the compensation in respect of the subject land
has not been paid to the petitioner 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 relation to the subject land, are deemed to have
lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
W.P.(C) 2489/2015 Page 4 of 5
12. However we make it clear that this order would not confer any title
on the petitioner. 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.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 3, 2018
afa
