Delhi High Court
Jeet Singh Chauhan vs Land Acquisition Collector, ... on 9 December, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 9th December, 2020.
+ W.P.(C) 945/2020
JEET SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Adv. for Mr.
N.S. Chechi, Adv.
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CM No.3050/2020 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM No.32009/2020 (of petitioner for early hearing)
3. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed and disposed of. The
writ petition, with the consent of the counsels, is ordered to be taken up for
hearing today itself.
W.P.(C) No.945/2020
4. The sole petitioner has filed this petition seeking mandamus to the
respondent Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) to forward the reference of
the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the
Reference Court for adjudication on merit.
5. The counsel for the respondent LAC appears on advance notice.
6. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) the petitioner was the recorded
co-owner of land ad-measuring 10 Bighas 17 Biswas in the revenue estate of
village Jasola, Tehsil Sarita Vihar, Khasra Number 442 (1-0), 420 Min (4-
7), 426 Min (1-09), 427 Min (1-16) and 432 Min (2-05); (ii) the land
aforesaid was acquired vide Award no.247/86-87 under Section 4,6 and 17
of the Act vide notification dated 12th May, 1986; (iii) as the land of the
petitioner was taken under the urgency clause, the respondent LAC sought
to pay 80% of the compensation for such land, estimated by it, to the
persons entitled thereto; (iv) as per the dicta of the Supreme Court in Raja
Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer AIR
1961 SC 1500, limitation under Section 18 of the Act commences from the
date of actual or constructive knowledge of the making of the award; (v) the
petitioner, being a co-owner, under protest, accepted the compensation on
24th April, 1987 given by the LAC on the estimated value of the land, in
spite of non-service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act; (vi) the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the undervaluation of the land by the
respondent LAC, filed application under Section 18 before the respondent
LAC, within the stipulated time under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act; (vii) the
petitioner, after submission of the application, kept on visiting the office of
the respondent LAC, for forwarding his application to the concerned Court
for necessary action; (viii) with the passage of time, the petitioner lost track
of his application as he developed various illnesses; (ix) in the year 2019,
the house of the petitioner was renovated and during which renovation, the
petitioner came across the application dated 1st December, 1986 and
immediately wrote a letter to the respondent LAC to forward his claim to the
Reference Court; and, (x) the petitioner also made queries under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 but did not received any reply thereto. Hence, this
petition.
7. The counsel for the respondent LAC appearing on advance notice
states that the application dated 1st December, 1986 made by the petitioner
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was not a proper application,
having been made prior to 24th April, 1987 when the petitioner received
compensation. It is stated that before receiving the compensation, the
petitioner could not have known what compensation he had received, to be
not satisfied therewith.
8. We have enquired from the counsel for the respondent LAC, when the
award was published.
9. The counsel for the respondent LAC states that the award was
published on 22nd October, 1986.
10. We have next enquired from the counsel for the respondent LAC,
whether not the owner of the acquired land would know the rate at which
compensation was awarded, on the publication of the award, inasmuch as
the award fixes the compensation on the basis of per acre or per bigha and a
land owner, from the size of his holding, is able to compute the
compensation awarded to him.
11. The counsel for the respondent LAC states that it is only on receipt of
compensation on 24th April, 1987 that the petitioner would know how much
compensation he has been awarded. It is further stated that at the time of
payment of compensation, the respondent LAC gets a form filled from the
land owner, to disclose whether there is any objection to the compensation
awarded or not. She states that she needs to file counter affidavit to disclose
the said facts inasmuch as if the petitioner, while filling up the said form, did
not disclose that he was not satisfied with the compensation received, the
petitioner would be bound thereby.
12. We are unable to agree. Once the petitioner had made an application
for reference, though after the publication of the award but before receiving
compensation, even if the petitioner in the form, if any filled stated that he
was satisfied with the compensation, there can be no estoppel. Even
otherwise there is no estoppel against the statute.
13. We have however enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, why
the petitioner remained quiet from December, 1986 till December, 2020.
14. The counsel for the petitioner states that the father of the petitioner
was following up the matter of payment of compensation and the reference
petition and was ailing for several years prior to his demise and only now
the petitioner learnt of the same.
15. The said arguments are contrary to the pleadings as noticed above and
the counsel for the petitioner, after failing to point out any pleadings on the
lines of what is argued, apologizes for the same.
16. The counsel for the petitioner is cautioned for future, to not make any
argument which does not have foundation in pleadings.
17. The counsel for the petitioner has also stated that several other
references arising from the same acquisition / award are still pending in the
Reference Court.
18. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether
compensation has been enhanced in any case.
19. The counsel for the petitioner replies in the affirmative.
20. We have next enquired from the counsel for the petitioner that if that
is so, whether not the remedy of the petitioner is under Section 28A of the
Land Acquisition Act.
21. The counsel for the petitioner states that though the remedy under
Section 28A of Act is also available but since the petitioner had applied
under Section 18 of the Act, he has a right to seek reference which has not
been made.
22. We are unable to agree.
23. The right to reference, if any, has become stale and has been lost
owing to the delay of 33 years after which this petition is filed.
24. We may notice that the counsel for the respondent LAC has
contended that the remedy under Section 28A of the Act would not be
available to the petitioner since he had applied under Section 18 of the Act.
25. We are unable to agree with the said contention of the counsel for the
respondent LAC also. The respondent LAC cannot, on the one hand contend
that the application dated 1st December, 1986 seeking reference was not in
accordance with law and / or proper for the reason of having been made
prior to receiving the compensation and on the other hand put up a bar to the
remedy, if any available to the petitioner under Section 28A of the Act.
26. We thus dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner to, if
entitled to, invoke his remedies under Section 28A of the Act.
27. The petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ASHA MENON, J
DECEMBER 9, 2020
'gsr'
