Delhi High Court
Surender Singh vs Lt. Governor, Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 16 October, 2018
$~22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment: 16th October, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9603/2015
SURENDER SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate.
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B / LAC.
Mr. Akash Yadav with Ms. Beeashaw N. Soni,
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 400 square yards land of the petitioner comprised in
Khasra No.38/10, 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
as '2013 Act') as neither the physical possession of the subject
land has been taken nor the compensation in respect thereof has
been paid to the petitioner.
W.P.(C) 9603/2015 Page 1 of 5
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 27.06.2005.
3. Mr. Akhil Sachar, 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. Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, learned counsel for the LAC submits that the
possession of the subject land was taken over on 31.08.2005 and
was further handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing
possession proceedings, however, the compensation has not been
tendered to the recorded owner. The learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner is not the recorded owner of the subject
land as he is claiming the title of the subject land on the basis of
GPA/Agreement to Sell/Will etc. Relevant Para. of the counter
affidavit filed by LAC reads as under:-
"4.That the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the petitioners have not
approached the Hon'ble Court with the clean
hands and have suppressed the material facts
that the government has taken the actual
physical possession of the subject land. The writ
petition is further liable to be dismissed as the
petitioner is not the recorded owner of the
subject land falling in Khasra No. 38/10 but is
claiming a relief of 400 sq. yds on basis of
W.P.(C) 9603/2015 Page 2 of 5
GPA/ agreement to sell/ will etc. the said
documents are not admissible for the purpose of
conferring title of the subject land to the
petitioner.
9. That it is submitted that the lands of village
Prehlad Pur Bangar were notified vide
Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 21.03.2003 which
was followed by the Notification under Section
6 of the Act dated 19.03.2004. The Award was
also passed vide Award No. 6/05-06 dated
12.07.2005 and also the possession of the
subject land falling in various khasra numbers
was taken on 31.08.2005 with the help of
demolition squad on the spot and handed over
to the DDA by preparing Possession
Proceedings on the spot. The compensation was
not paid to the recorded owner"
5. Counter Affidavit has also been filed by DDA. Relevant Para is
re-produced as under:-
"f... I say that the present writ petition is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the
ground that the petitioner has claimed to be the
owner of the land measuring 400 sq. yds in
Khasra No. 38/10 of village Pehladpur Bangar
being the legal hier of deceased Sh. Budh Singh
who purchased the same through GPA and
agreement to sell dated 03.03.1988 from Sh.
Hari Om, who was also the purchaser of the
same on the basis of GPA and agreement to sell
dated 17.06.1987 from Sh. Rama Arora, the
recorded owner of the same. Therefore the
petitioner has no locus to file the present writ
petition challenging the acquisition proceedings
or to allege that no compensation has been paid.
The petition is liable to be dismissed on this
ground alone.
W.P.(C) 9603/2015 Page 3 of 5
"j... I say that the physical possession of the
acquired land falling in Khasra No. 38/10 (4-
05) situated in village Pehladpur Bangar has
not been handed over to the respondent No. 3
Delhi Development Authority by the LAC/ L&B
Department, GNCTD."
6. Ms. Tyagi, 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. Akhil Sachar 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.
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
W.P.(C) 9603/2015 Page 4 of 5
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 the 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. Compensation be paid
within one year from today.
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 16, 2018
afa
