Delhi High Court
Ranbir Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 September, 2018
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 24th September, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 7144/2015
RANBIR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Rajeev Verma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Gogher, CGSC for UOI.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate for
LAC/L&B.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate 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 pertaining to land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra
nos.91 (06-08), 93/1 (01-03), 94/1 (02-08), 118 (04-16), 122/3 (01-
04), 123 (04-16), 124 (05-06), 125 (04-16), 126/1 (02-08), 129/2 (02-
08), 130 (04-16), 131 (00-14), 132 (03-09), 133 (02-13), 134 (04-16),
135/1 (02-10), 136 (4-16), 138/1 (02-10), 139/2 (02-16), 160/1 (03-
16), 163 (04-04), 164 (04-00), 165 (04-16), 166 (04-16), 201 (04-16),
203 (04-16), 204 (01-18), total measuring 97 bighas and 15 biswas,
situated in the revenue estate of village Rajpur Khurd, Tehsil Hauz
Khas, Mehrauli, New 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, as neither physical
possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has
been tendered to the petitioners.
2. Reliance is placed by Mr. Panda, counsel for the LAC on para 9 of the
counter affidavit filed by him, which reads as under :
NAME AWARD NO. AMOUNT REMARKS
Randhir Singh 22/87-88 92857.08 Paid Dt. 21.08.1987
Mohan Singh 22/87-88 92857.09 Paid Dt. 20.08.1987
Ranbir Singh 22/87-88 92857.09 Paid Dt. 20.08.1987
Satbir Singh 22/87-88 34281.41 Paid Dt. 21.08.1987
Rajbir Singh 22/87-88 34821.40 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987
Rambir Singh 22/87-88 34821.40 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987
Prem Chand 22/87-88 139285.63 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987
Raghbir Singh 22/87-88 69642.81 Paid Dt. 24.08.1987
Sukhbir Singh 22/87-88 69642.81 Paid Dt. 24.08.1987
Parsh Ram 22/87-88 208928.44 Paid Dt. 24.08.1987
Bhagwana 22/87-88 208928.44 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987
Lal Chand 22/87-88 139285.61 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987
Jai Lal 22/87-88 139285.61 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987
Anand Singh 22/87-88 69642.80 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987
Girdhari Singh 22/87-88 69642.81 Paid Dt. 20.08.1987
Sultan 22/87-88 139285.61 Paid Dt. 31.08.1987
Partap Singh 22/87-88 111428.51 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987
Ram Phool 22/87-88 22285.70 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987
Samunder Singh 22/87-88 22285.70 Paid Dt. 31.08.1987
Ajit Singh 22/87-88 22285.70 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987
Jai Pal Singh 22/87-88 55714.26 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987
Dalip Singh 22/87-88 55714.25 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987
Lakhi Ram 22/87-88 111428.51 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987
Chander Singh 22/87-88 111428.51 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987
Kanwar Bhan 22/87-88 38690.46 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987
Parbhu 22/87-88 38690.45 Paid Dt. 07.09.1987
Nar Singh 22/87-88 38690.45 Paid Dt. 07.09.1987
Mahender Singh 22/87-88 38690.45 Paid Dt. 31.08.1987
Smt. Murti 22/87-88 38690.45 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987
Knwar Bhan 22/87-88 7738.09 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987
Parbhu 22/87-88 7738.09 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987
Nar Singh 22/87-88 7738.10 Paid Dt. 07.09.1987
Mahender Singh 22/87-88 7738.09 Paid Dt. 31.08.1987
Smt. Murti 22/87-88 7738.09 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987
Umed Singh 22/87-88 116071.35 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987
Dharam Pal 22/87-88 116071.35 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987
Bhim Kaur 22/87-88 46428.55 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987
3. Mr. Panda, counsel for the LAC submits that even as per petitioners,
averments have been made in para 5 of the writ petition that the
compensation has been returned/deposited back in the office of Land
Acquisition Collector (LAC) by the petitioners and their predecessors,
counsel submits that since the compensation has been tendered to the
petitioners, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners.
4. Counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submits that cheques
were deposited with the office of the LAC, however, he has no record
to show that whether the cheques were encashed or not. Additionally,
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had
made a request for grant of an alternate plot on 17.06.1987. He
submits that since no relief can be granted in this case, petitioners may
be permitted to revive their request for grant of alternate plots.
5. Mr. Panda without prejudice to the rights of the respondents submits
that in case an application for revival for grant of an alternate plot is
made, the same would be considered by Land & Building Department
in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is dismissed for the reasons stated above. In case, an
application for revival for request for grant of alternate plots is made,
the Land and Building Department will consider the same in
accordance with law.
CM APPL 39124/2018 (impleadment)
7. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, no further order is
required to be passed in this application. The same is dismissed as
withdrawn.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
ck
