Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 23 April, 2019
20 & 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1054/2015 & CM 1855/2015
SATISH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Rahul Sharma, Ms Jyoti Dutt
Sharma, Mr Bilal Ali and Mr C.K.
Bhatt, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate
LAC/L&B.
Mr Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for
GNCTD.
Mr Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
for DDA with Mr Rajeev Jha and Ms
Komal Sorout, Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 5753/2015 & CM 10343/2015
DIXIT YADAV & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Rahul Sharma, Ms Jyoti Dutt
Sharma, Mr Bilal Ali and Mr C.K.
Bhatt, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC for
GNCTD with Ms Mahamaya
Chatterjee, Advocates.
Mr Ajay Verma, Senior Standing
Counsel for DDA with Mr Arjun
Pant, ASC.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Starding Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate
LAC/L&B.
W.P.(C) 1054/2015 & W.P.(C) 5753/2015 Page 1 of 7
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 23.04.2019
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. These two petitions arise out of a similar set of facts and seek similar
reliefs and are accordingly being disposed of by this common order. The
arguments on the petitions were, however, heard separately.
2. In both petitions the relief sought is for a declaration of deemed lapsing of
the land acquisition proceedings in respect of residential plots forming part
of a regularized colony „Suraj Park‟ located in the Revenue Estate of Village
Samaypur in Delhi. While W.P.(C) No.1054/2015 seeks the above relief in
respect of residential plots 100, 101 and 102 measuring 113 square yards
each, W.P.(C) No.5753/2015 seeks the relief in respect of the residential
plots 104 and 104A measuring 150 square yards each. The second prayer in
each petition is for a direction to Respondent No.1 to restore the actual,
physical and vacant possession of the aforementioned residential plots to the
Petitioners. The third relief is to restrain the Respondents from creating any
third party interest or raising any construction on the said plots.
3. The averments in both petitions are almost identical. What is relevant is
the averment in paragraphs 4 and 5 that there was a notification issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LAA‟) in 1961 in respect of
the acquisition of the entire revenue estate of Village Samaypur followed by
a declaration dated 7th December, 1966 under Section 6 of the LAA. It is
stated that the Award No. 19/83-84 was pronounced in 1983, but by this
time, "a big part of the land had already been developed in the shape of
residential colony, known as Suraj Park". It is further averred that the plots
in the colony had been converted into residential plots much prior to the
initiation of "scheme of regularization" by the Government of NCT of
Delhi. The colony was carved out in the shape of different blocks i.e. A, B,
and C and these blocks were further divided into different plots "which were
purchased, built and occupied by us".
4. Reference is made to the letter dated 14th June, 2004 written by the Land
Management Branch of the Delhi Development Authority („DDA‟) to the
Chairman of the Suraj Park Residential Welfare Association stating that the
Suraj Park colony area was de-notified in 1987. The subject matter reads
"Deficiency, Irregularities causing confusion-clarity thereof regarding Suraj
Park Colony".
5. Enclosed with each writ petition is a copy of the order dated 13 th January,
1999 issued by the DDA referring to the development work of 18
„unauthorized colonies entrusted to the Rohini Zone‟ where the name Suraj
Park figures at Serial No.2. Also enclosed is a copy of the W.P.(C)
No.2048/1999 filed by Kehar Singh and others seeking a direction to
restrain the Respondents in that petition, which included the DDA, from
demolishing structures of the Petitioners and dispossessing them from the
lands of the same colony known as „Suraj Park‟. It appears that there was an
interim order dated 8th April, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in the
said writ petition directing status quo to be maintained. The said writ
petition was in respect of two Khasra Nos. i.e. Khasra Nos. 37/21 Min (2-8),
22 Min (2-8) and 23 Min (2-8). The DDA informed the Court that the above
Khasra Nos. had been excluded from the scheme of regularization of the
colony. An affidavit to this effect was filed in March, 2013. Following this
on 1st May, 2013, W.P.(C) No.2048/1999 was withdrawn and a fresh writ
petition being W.P.(C) No.2803/2013 which had been filed seeking similar
reliefs in respect of the remaining khasra numbers was entertained and a
notice was issued. The counsel for the Petitioner informs the Court that this
W.P.(C) No.2803/2013 is still pending before the learned Single Judge and
is coming up for hearing on 22nd August, 2019.
6. As far as the present petitions are concerned, it is stated that in view of the
enactment of the 2013 Act, which came into operation on 1st January, 2014,
the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act
since no compensation has been paid for the land in question despite the
Petitioners being forcibly dispossessed of the same.
7. Admittedly, the lands in question form part of the colony „Suraj Park‟
which on the showing of the Petitioners was initially an unauthorized colony
and is today supposedly a „regularized colony‟. This entire process of the
regularization of the unauthorized colony has proceeded on the premise that
those who are in occupation of the land in question have no valid right, title
or interest thereto. This Court has consistently taken the view that where the
lands in question are part of an unauthorized colony, which is either
awaiting regularization, or has been regularized, the relief under Section 24
(2) of the 2013 Act is unavailable in respect of such lands. The rationale to
this has been explained by this Court in Mool Chand v. Union of India
2019(173) DRJ 595[DB]:
"48. The third aspect of the case is that the Petitioner admits
that the land in question is part of an unauthorised colony. The
very basis for seeking regularisation of an unauthorised colony
is that it is located on land which belongs either to the public or
to some other private parties. The Petitioners would therefore
not have the locus standi to seek a declaration in terms of
Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act in such cases since the very fact
that they have sought regularisation on the basis that they are in
unauthorised colony would be an admission that they do not
otherwise have any valid right, title or interest in the land in
question.
49. This Court has by order dated 19th December 2018 in
WP(C) No.190/2016 (Harbhagwan Batra v. Govt. Of NCT of
Delhi) and order dated 8th January 2019 in WP(C)
No.10201/2015 (Gurmeet Singh Grewal v. Union of India)
negatived similar pleas by the Petitioners who were trying to
seek similar declaration of lapsing even while admitting that
they were pursuing regularisation of an unauthorised colony.
50. In a decision dated 10th January 2019 in W.P. (C) 3623 of
2018 (Akhil Sibal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) this Court
observed in this context as under:
"18. The Court at this stage may also observe that many
of the unauthorized colonies are awaiting regularization
orders. A large portion of these colonies are by way of
encroachment on public land, some of it may be on
private land, but in any event, the constructions
themselves are unauthorized. The major premise on
which such regularization is sought is that these
constructions have been erected on public or private land
which does not belong to the persons who are under
occupation of those structures. That very basis gets
contradicted as some of them try to seek a declaration
about lapsing of the land acquisition proceedings by
invoking Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. This is a
contradiction in terms and is legally untenable."
8. It has further been clarified by this Court that even where a colony has
been regularized, if a Court were to grant relief under Section 24 (2) of the
2013 Act, it would strike at the very basis of the regularization. Unless the
Court is asked to declare the regularization to be illegal, no relief under
Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act can possibly be granted. It must be recalled
that the object of regularization of an unauthorized colony, is to accord some
legal sanctity to an otherwise imperfect right, title or interest of the several
persons in the said colony. If this very basis were to be disturbed, it would
result in chaos and confusion. It is for this reason that the Court has, while
rejecting the prayer for a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act in
respect of such lands, also being clarifying that the dismissal of the petition
seeking such relief would not come in the way of the Petitioners pursuing
their remedies for regularization.
9. Likewise, in the present petitions, this Court, for the reasons explained
above, rejects the prayer for declaration of deemed lapsing of land
acquisition proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act and the other
reliefs sought. At the same time, this Court clarifies that the dismissal of the
present petition will not prevent the Petitioners pursuing the writ petition
stated to be pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court in
accordance with law. The said writ petition would be dealt with and
disposed of on its own merits.
10. These petitions are accordingly dismissed. The pending applications are
also disposed of. No costs.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
APRIL 23, 2019
rd
