DAMINI WADHWA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
DECIDED ON : 24 JULY , 2017


+ W.P.(C) 5046/2016 & CM APPL. 21098/2016
DAMINI WADHWA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.M.P.Bhargava, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate appearing
for Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocate for UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti
Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/LAC.
Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel with Ms.Isha
Garg, Mr.Harshit Manaktala & Ms.Gauri
Chaturvedi, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)

1. The petitioner seeks declaration that acquisition of land in
Khasra Nos. 932/612 (0-8) and 937/614 (1-18) situated in the Revenue
Estate of Village Maidan Garhi, Tehsil, New Delhi with respect of 6
biswas of land along with Gram Sabha and common land rights out of
total 2 bighas and 6 biswas of land (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit
land’) has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 25.11.1980; it
included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on
W.P.(C) 5046/2016 Page 1 of 3


18.06.1985. The award bearing No.23/87-88 dated 17.06.1987 was
made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
3. The petitioner avers that she is owner in possession of the suit
land. It was purchased by her from Col.Mahendra Pratap vide
Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney dated 06.09.2006.
Possession of the suit land was never taken over by the respondents;
she was not paid or tendered any compensation.
4. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter-
affidavit, states in Para (8) :

suit land has already been taken over on 16.07.1987. The
compensation has also been paid to the recorded owners. The details
of the individuals to whom the compensation has been given has been
mentioned therein. The petitioner has placed on record copy of
Khatauni (Annexure ‘P6’) where Chander Singh, Kartar Singh and
Dhaniram have been shown as recorded owners. Apparently, they
W.P.(C) 5046/2016 Page 2 of 3


were the individuals to whom the compensation was tendered / paid.
The petitioner is a subsequent purchase on the basis of Agreement to
Sell and General Power of Attorney dated 06.09.2006. Nothing is on
record to show if the suit land was ever mutated in her name. The
petitioner never intimated or informed the revenue authorities
regarding purchase of the property. These documents i.e. Agreement
to Sell and General Power of Attorney do not confer any ownership
right per se . The petitioner had no right to collect any compensation
on behalf of the recorded owners particularly when the necessary
compensation had already been given to them. The petitioner has also
not placed on record any credible document to show if the individual
Col. Mahendra Pratap from whom the suit land was allegedly
purchased on 06.09.2006 was the recorded owner in the revenue
records.
6. The petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Pending
application also stands disposed of.

S.P.GARG
JUDGE)

S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)

JULY 24, 2017 / tr
W.P.(C) 5046/2016 Page 3 of 3