Delhi High Court
Anita Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 September, 2019
$~24.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 06.09.2019
% W.P.(C.) No. 2594/2018 and CM APPL. 10634/2018
ANITA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mahesh Prasad & Mr. Alok K.
Prasad, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for
respondent No.1/ UOI.
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC and
Mr. Zahid Hanief & Ms. Manisha
Chauhan, Advocates for respondent
No.2/ GNCTD.
Ms. Sukhbeer Kour Bajwa, Advocate
for respondent No.3/ DDA.
Mr. V. Balaji & Ms.Sripradha
Krishnan, Advocates for respondent
No.5/ LAC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the
notification dated 28.04.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, and subsequent declaration dated 26.04.2013 under Section
6 of the said Act, and all acquisition proceedings, including the award, if
passed, in respect of Khasra No.305 admeasuring 1 Bigha and 1.5 Biswa in
the revenue estate of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi on the ground that
the acquisition had lapsed due to the failure on the part of the competent
authority of the respondents to issue the notification/ declaration under
Section 6 of the said Act within the stipulated period of one year from the
date of judgment dated 21.03.2012 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal Nos. 3022-3023/2013 titled Prahlad Vihar Resident Association &
Others Vs. Union of India & Others.
2. The petitioner claims to be the recorded owner in respect of the
aforesaid land by virtue of sale deed dated 22.05.1985 in her favour. The
case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's land, along with other adjoining
lands, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on
28.04.1995. The notification also invoked Section 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act and, consequently, the right of the petitioner to file
objections under Section 5A of the Act was deprived. The declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was issued on 26.04.1996. The Prahlad Vihar Resident
Association and Others filed writ petition before this Court assailing the said
notification under Section 4 of the Act and the subsequent declaration under
Section 6 of the Act. On 09.07.2007, the writ petition being W.P.(C.) No.
3938/1996 was dismissed by this Court. The matter was carried to the
Supreme Court, which rendered its decision in the aforesaid Civil Appeals.
The Supreme Court quashed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and
directed the Competent Authority to invite objections under Section 5A of
the Act pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated
28.04.1995, and proceed in accordance with law. The fresh declaration
under Section 6 of the Act was, however, issued only on 26.04.2013. The
same was beyond the period of one year from the date of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No.3022-3023/2012, which was rendered
on 21.03.2012. Consequently, the case of the petitioner is that the said
declaration was beyond the period of limitation prescribed by clause (ii) of
the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, and the acquisition lapsed.
3. The further submission of the petitioner is that one Sunil Goel filed
W.P.(C.) No. 3049/2013 to assail the fresh declaration under Section 6 of
the Act dated 26.04.2013. That writ petition was allowed by this Court on
29.04.2014. The other petitions preferred before this Court were also
allowed by this Court, particulars whereof are also disclosed in the petitions.
Thus, the case of the petitioner is that there is no valid acquisition of the
petitioner's land till date. Learned counsel further submits that no award has
been made in respect of the petitioner's land and no compensation paid.
4. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. The DDA has
stated in its counter-affidavit that the acquired land has been utilized for the
purpose of Rohini Residential Scheme. In paragraph 7 of the counter-
affidavit of the DDA, it is stated that as per the land record in relation to
Khasra No. 305 of Village Shahabad Daulatpur, the total area admeasures 8
Bighas and 13 Biswas, out of which the physical possession of land
measuring 7 Bigha 13 Biswa was handed over to the DDA by the LAC/
L&B Department on 26.11.2012, which included the land against which the
petitioner has claimed relief. Only 1 Bigha land of the above said Khasra
No. was not handed over to the DDA. According to the petitioner, the
petitioner's land is lying vacant and has not been utilized for the purpose of
Rohini Residential Scheme.
5. From the aforesaid narration, it is evident that there is no valid
acquisition of the petitioner's land initiated by the aforesaid notification
dated 28.04.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The
declaration under Section 6 issued on 26.04.1996 was quashed by the
Supreme Court, as aforesaid, and the subsequent notification issued on
26.04.2013 was barred by limitation. In fact, in W.P.(C.) No. 3049/2013
preferred by Sunil Goel (supra), the said notification has also been quashed.
The aforesaid being the position, the petitioner would be entitled to return of
her land, provided the same has not been utilized for the planned
development of Delhi, i.e. for the purpose of the Rohini Residential Scheme.
6. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with direction to the
respondents to ascertain, firstly, the title of the petitioner and her right to
claim return of her land, or compensation in lieu thereof. In case the
petitioner's title is verified in her favour, the respondents shall thereafter
proceed to examine and find out whether, as a matter of fact, the petitioner's
land has been utilized for development of the Rohini Residential Scheme in
any manner whatsoever. If it forms part of the said development, the
respondents shall be bound to pay compensation to the petitioner at the
market rate prevalent on the date on which possession of the petitioner's
land was taken, in accordance with law prevalent on the said date.
However, in case the petitioner's land has not been utilized in the Rohini
Residential Scheme, and the same is vacant, the same shall be returned to
her. The respondent shall communicate to the petitioner their finding with
regard to the petitioner's title and the status of the petitioner's land, i.e.
whether it forms part of the Rohini Residential Scheme, or not, within six
weeks from today. In case the petitioner is found entitled to compensation
in terms of our order, the respondents shall thereafter proceed to determine
the same within three months thereafter.
7. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
SANJEEV NARULA, J
SEPTEMBER 06, 2019
B.S. Rohella
