Delhi High Court
Parvesh Pandit A. K. A Ram Parvesh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 20 March, 2019
$~25 to32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11543/2018 & CM APPL. 44675/2018
PARVESH PANDIT A. K. A RAM PARVESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anukrit Prateek and Mr.
Satasmita, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin N.Advocate
Mr .Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocates
Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Ms. HIba
Rabia Shah, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr . Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA
+ W.P.(C) 11549/2018 & CM APPL. 44692/2018
NEELAM DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anukrit Prateek and Mr.
Satasmita, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Ms. HIba
Rabia Shah, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Jha and Mr. M.S. Akhtar,
Advocates for R-2
+ W.P.(C) 11553/2018 & CM APPL. 44697/2018
ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
W.P. (C) 11543 of 2018 and batch Page 1 of 8
Through: Mr. Anukrit Prateek and Mr.
Satasmita, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Ms. HIba
Rabia Shah, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr . Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate for R-
2
+ W.P.(C) 11559/2018 & CM APPL. 44730/2018
MITHAI LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anukrit Prateek and Mr.
Satasmita, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Chiranjeev Kumar, Advocate for
R-1/UOI
Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate for
R-2
Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate for
DDA with Ms. Nazia Parveen,
Advocate for R-3/DDA
+ W.P.(C) 11566/2018 & CM APPL. 44762/2018
NAFIS AHMED A.K.A NAFEES AHMAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anukrit Prateek and Mr.
Satasmita, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Ms. HIba
Rabia Shah, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr . Sanjay
W.P. (C) 11543 of 2018 and batch Page 2 of 8
Singh, Advocates for DDA
Mr .Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 11590/2018 & CM APPL. 44828/2018
CHALITAR RAI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anukrit Prateek and Mr.
Satasmita, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Ms. HIba
Rabia Shah, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr . Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sachin N. Advocate for R-2
Ms. Ruchika Rathi and Mr. Karanjot
Singh, Advocates
Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 11595/2018 & CM APPL. 44830/2018
RANI DEVI UPADHYAY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anukrit Prateek and Mr.
Satasmita, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Ms. HIba
Rabia Shah, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr . Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA
Mr .Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 11597/2018 & CM APPL. 44834/2018
ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ..... Petitioner
W.P. (C) 11543 of 2018 and batch Page 3 of 8
Through: Mr. Anukrit Prateek and Mr.
Satasmita, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Ms. HIba
Rabia Shah, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr . Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA
Mr .Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocates
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 20.03.2019
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. All these petitions arise out of a common set of facts and seek
similar reliefs and therefore are being disposed of by this common
order. However, each of the petitions was heard separately.
2. For convenience, the facts in the lead petition i.e. W.P (C)
11543/2018 are discussed. The Petitioner Shri Parvesh Pandit, states
that he is the „true owner‟ and in possession of land comprising plot
77A, measuring 50.75 sq.yards, out of Khasra No. 37/20 in total area
admeasuring 5 bighas and 01 biswas situated in revenue estate of
Village Najafgarh, Tehsil & District Delhi. He states that the abadi in
the area is known as „Dwarka Vihar‟.
3. It requires to be noted at the outset that „Dwarka Vihar‟ forms part
of the list of unauthorised colonies placed on the website of the
Department of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi
(Delhi.Gov.in). It is at Serial No.77 with a Provisional Registration
No. 82. This fact that Dwarka Vihar is an unauthorised colony is,
however, not disclosed in any of these petitions.
4. The Petitioner states that the above land was transferred to him
through a General Power of Attorney (GPA). The copy of the GPA
dated 24th March, 1995 enclosed with the petition shows that it was
executed by one Ram Kumar Sharma nominating the Petitioner as his
lawful General Attorney. It is an unregistered document. Also
enclosed with the petition are on Agreement to Sell and an affidavit
executed by the same Ram Kumar Sharma on the same date. There is
a receipt for Rs. 17,700/- executed by the Petitioner.
5. The above documents are obviously not documents that can convey
valid title. The Court cannot recognise the „true‟ ownership of the
petitioner on the basis of such documents. Be that as it may, the fact
that the aforementioned unauthorised colony figures in the list put up
on the website of the Department of Urban development, GNCTD
indicates that an application was made by the Residential Welfare
Association (RWA) of the said colony and the Petitioner was a
member thereof.
6. In respect of same land, a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1994 was issued on 7th April, 2006 followed by
declaration under Section 6 on 4th April, 2007 and Award No.
05/2008-09/SW was passed in 2008.
7. The Petitioner is seeking the relief of deemed lapsing of land
acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act claiming
that possession of the land in question is with the Petitioner and that
no compensation has been paid. However, this Court in a long line of
orders including Mool Chand v. Union of India 2019 (173) DRJ
595[DB] has been declining the relief under Section 24 (2) of 2013
Act where the properties in question forms part of the unauthorized
colony. In Mool Chand, the Court explained the legal position thus:
"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. As far as the remaining petitions are concerned, the facts are no different.
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to urge that in some of the
petitions viz.W.P.(C)11559/2018 (Mithai Lal v. Union of India), W.P. (C)
No. 11549/2018 (Neelam Devi v. Union of India), W.P.(C) 11590/2018
(Chalitar Rai v. Union of India) and W.P.(C)11553/2018 (Ashok Kumar v.
Union of India) the Award in question acknowledges the claim of that
Petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact still remains that all these Petitioners
are similarly placed on account of the following features:
i) Each of them has claimed ownership on the basis of an unregistered GPA,
Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, receipt etc. none of which can be recognized as
documents conferring valid title.
(ii) Since none of these petitioners are the original and „true owners‟ of the
land in question, it is highly doubtful that the Petitioners‟ are entitled for
compensation in terms of the Award under the LAA.
iii) On the land claimed by each of these Petitioners there is a built up
structure which forms part of the unauthorised colony "Dwarka Vihar"
which has been granted a provisional registration No. 82 as is evident from
the list on the website of the GNCTD.
9. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Mool Chand v. Union of
India (supra) is squarely applied to the present petitions. However, as
indicated in this Court‟s order dated 25th January, 2019 in W.P.(C)
73438/2018 (Krishna Devi v. Union of India), the dismissal of these
petitions will not come in the way of the Petitioners pursuing the
regularisation of the colony in question.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, the prayers in these petitions cannot be
granted and the petitions are accordingly dismissed. The interim orders, if
any, are vacated. The applications are dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
MARCH 20, 2019
rr
