Full Judgment Text
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Judgment: 13 September, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 6253/2015
JAGDISH SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anuroop P.S., Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Hem Kumar and
Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Advocates for
DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioners. The petitioners seek a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners
comprised in Khasra no.181 measuring 4 bigha 16 biswas, situated in
the revenue estate of village Rajpur Khurd, Tehsil Hauz Khas,
Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) are
deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
W.P. (C) No.6253/2015 Page 1 of 4
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013
Act’), as neither the physical possession of the subject land has been
taken nor the compensation has been tendered.
2. The necessary facts required to be noticed for the disposal of the
present petition are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued
on 25.11.1980, a Section 6 declaration was made on 18.06.1985.
Thereafter, an Award bearing no.22/1987-88 was rendered on
17.06.1987.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners had made an application in the name of the
predecessor-in-interest for providing an alternate plot which was being
provided to the land owners, whose land had been acquired, however,
the request of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the land
of the petitioners had not been acquired. The counter affidavit filed by
the LAC, however, has a different story to tell inasmuch as per the
stand taken in para 10 of the counter affidavit, physical possession of
the subject land was taken on the spot on 15.07.1987 and
compensation was tendered to the recorded owners by cheque
no.82599 dated 18.09.1987. Para 10 of the counter affidavit filed by
the LAC is reproduced below:
“10. That it is submitted that the physical possession of the
subject land falling in khasra number 181 (4-16) was taken
on the spot on 15.7.1987 and handed over to the DDA as
also the compensation was duly paid to the recorded owners
vide cheque number 82599 dated 18.9.1987. Thus the
present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed.”
W.P. (C) No.6253/2015 Page 2 of 4
4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the LAC submits that
having regard to the fact that the physical possession of the subject
land was taken and the compensation tendered, the provision of
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would
not apply and resultantly, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
when the petitioners approached the Office of Land and Building for
grant of alternate plot, the application was rejected on the ground that
the land had not been acquired, today an opposite stand is being taken
that the possession of the land has been taken and compensation paid.
It is thus, submitted that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on
both counts. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of the
stand taken by the LAC, the application seeking an alternate plot
should be revived and the request be considered in accordance with
law.
6. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners inasmuch as the application so filed was rejected, as stated
by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the land of the
petitioners had not been acquired, and the petitioners would not be
entitled to an alternate plot.
7. Admittedly, the possession of the subject land has been taken as per
the counter affidavit filed by the LAC. Thus, the petitioners cannot be
granted any relief. However, we direct the Land and Building
Department to consider the application filed by the petitioners in
accordance with law. It is made clear that the ground of delay will not
W.P. (C) No.6253/2015 Page 3 of 4
come in the way of the petitioners in view of the pendency of this writ
petition in this Court.
8. With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
pst
W.P. (C) No.6253/2015 Page 4 of 4