Delhi High Court
Virender Kumar vs The Lt. Governor, National ... on 16 October, 2018
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgement: 16th October, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 7909/2015 & C.M. APPL 15987/2015
VIRENDER KUMAR ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate.
versus
THE LT. GOVERNOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI & ORS .....Respondnets
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
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 petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to 1008 square yards land comprised in
Khasra No. 52/7 situated in the revenue estate of village Prehladpur
Banger, NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land')
are 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 has been taken
nor compensation has been paid to the petitioners.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this petition are
that a Notification under Section 4 & 17 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on
27.10.1999, a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
03.04.2000 and an Award bearing No.14/2002-03 was passed on
08.07.2002.
3. Mr. Akhil Sachar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken
and the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, the
petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act. He further submits that his submission is further
fortified by the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit.
Learned counsel further relies on 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, in response to
the stand taken by LAC in the counter affidavit that the petitioner
has no locus standi to file the present petition as they are not the
recorded owners. Reliance is placed on para 28 of this judgment
which reads 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."
4. On the other hand, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC
submits that the vacant physical possession of the land falling in
khasra No. 52/7(2-00) has been taken on the spot on 09.05.2000 for
the purpose of Rohini Residential Scheme and as per record, the
compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner. In support of
his submissions, counsel for LAC relies on para 7 of the counter
affidavit, which read as under:
"7. That the present petition is liable to be dismissed
as after completing the acquisition related
requirements under the law, the answering respondent
has duly taken the actual vacant physical possession
of the subject land falling in khasra number 52/7(2-
00) on 9.5.2000 and handed it over to the DDA on the
spot by preparing possession proceedings on the spot
as the purpose of acquisition was Rohini Residential
Scheme. The recorded owner apparently never turned
up to claim the compensation and records revealed
that the same could not be paid."
5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the LAC further submits that
the petitioner herein is claiming his right, title or interest in the
subject land on the basis of GPA dated 18.09.2002 and not on the
basis of sale deed as the same reflects the name of Krishna Devi as
the original purchaser.
6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the DDA. Relevant para is
produced hereinbelow:-
"(ii) As per record, Khasra No. 52/7(4-16) Village
Prehladpur Bangar was notified under Section 4
vide Notification No.F10(29)96/L&B/LA dated
27.10.1999 and Declaration U/s 6 & 17(i) of the
Land Acquisition Act, vide Declaration Notification
No.F10(15)04-L&B/LA 3-4-2000 and Khasra
No.52//7 m(2-00) possession was handed over to
DDA by LAC/L&B Department at Site vide
Possession Proceedings dated 09-05-2000 and
physical possession of land in question was
transferred to the Engg. Department RPD IV for
Rohini Residential Scheme. Possession Proceedings
dated 09.05.2000 are Annexure R-2 remaining Land
(2-16) has not been handed over to DDA by
LAC/L&B Deptt. of GNCT Delhi and quashed U/s 6-
17(i) DATED 03-04-2000 by Hon'ble Supreme
Court and U/s 6 was again issued on 20-03-2013
and passed the award No.7/14-15 dated 19-3-15.
Physical possession of above said Land of Kh.
No.52//7(4-10) has not been handed over to DDA by
LAC/L&B Dept. of GNCT Delhi."
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
8. 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 observations made by the
Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust (supra) where the rights
of the subsequent purchaser have been recognized.
9. 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 have no locus standi
to file the present petition as they are the subsequent owners of the
subject land, holds no ground.
10. Having regard to the submissions made in the counter affidavit
filed by LAC that the compensation in respect thereof 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
petitioners are 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 to the petitioner within
one year from today.
11. However, we made it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
on the title of the subject land. The question of title of the subject
land is left open to be decided in the appropriate court of
jurisdiction.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms along with the
pending application.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
OCTOBER 16, 2018//gr
