Delhi High Court
Karim Baksh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 17 September, 2018
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 17th September, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 6779/2018 and CM No. 25705/2018
KARIM BAKSH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Nitin Mishra and Ms Mitali Gupta,
Advs
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Siddharth Panda, Adv for
LAC/L&B
Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta and
Ms Niharika Jauhari, Advs 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
pertaining to the land of the petitioner forming part of khasra No. 266 (6-9)
and 273 (5-8) measuring 11 bighas and 17 biswas situated in Village Khirki,
Tehsil Saket, NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred 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 was taken nor compensation paid.
2. In this case the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act was issued on 05.11.1980, Section 6 declaration was made on
07.06.1985. An award bearing No. 20/1987-88 was passed in the year 1987.
3. Counsel for the petitioner relies on copies of jamabandi placed on
record. Reliance is placed on translated copy, more particularly, paragraph 3
to show that the land in question is excluded from the Ministry of
Rehabilitation, Government of India and its ownership and title has been
approved in favour of Rahimuddin, son of Bhika. Paragraph 3 is reproduced
below:-
"The Khasra No. 266/(6-9), 276 / (5-8) total 11-17 bigha
is exluded from Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of
India, and its ownership and title has been approved in favour
of Rahimuddin Son of Bhika."
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC. Mr Panda, learned
counsel for the LAC submits that as per award, the land in question is in the
ownership of the Custodian department. He further submits that payment
has not been released in favour of either of the custodian or the petitioner
herein. Physical possession of the subject land has also not been taken and
possession is to be handed over by book transfer but the same is yet to be
done.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of title may be
kept open to be decided in appropriate proceedings, however, since as per
the jamabandi the ownership of the land vests in favour of Sh. Rahimuddin,
son of Sh. Bhika through whom the petitioners are claiming being the
grandsons, the declaration so prayed be granted.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:-
"That in the present case, as per the award, the land in
question is in the ownership of custodian department and it is
recorded in the award that possession of such land can be
handed over by book transfer and as regards compensation with
respect to the lands, an entry to the effect that as per award
"Ownership has been mentioned as Custodian Department."
8. As per the stand taken by the learned counsel for the LAC before the
court that the physical possession in the form of book transfer has yet to take
place and compensation has not been tendered to any one, resultantly, the
acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed, however, we make it
clear that we have not expressed any opinion as far as question of title is
concerned. The same would be decided in appropriate proceedings.
9. The writ petition along with the pending application is disposed of in
the above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
SU
