Habeeb Khan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 2014:DHC:6815-DB Act’) and in respect of which the Award No.10/87-88 dated 14.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra Nos.458/1 Min (0-12), 472 Min (0-18), 473 (4-16), 474 (4-16) and 478 Min (0-14) measuring 11 bighas 16 biswas in all in Village- Sayoorpur, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Although the petitioners claim that they are in physical possession of the subject land, the respondents dispute this and state that physical possession was taken on 14.07.1987. However, insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that the same has not been paid to them whereas it is the case of the respondents that the said compensation was deposited in court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in CM(Main) No.1407/2013 passed on 30.12.2013. By virtue of that order, the said CM(Main), amongst others, was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the cheque tendered in each petition would be treated as tendered to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date i.e. 30.12.2013. According to the respondents this amounts to payment of compensation. However, this issue has already been settled by a decision of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. WP(C) No.1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that unless and until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere deposit of the compensation in court would not be sufficient. The compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was tendered in this court in the said CM(Main) No.1407/2013 without first being offered to the petitioner herein. Therefore the same, following the decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioner.

3. In these circumstances, it is clear that although there is a dispute with regard to the physical possession of the subject land, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients necessary for the applicability of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this court in the following decisions, stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014)

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)

(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:

4. There is, however, one more point which needs to be considered. An objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that all the co-owners have not been made parties to the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that each of the petitioners has an undivided share in the entire subject land. As a result, the petition is maintainable by the petitioners on behalf of themselves as also on behalf of the other co-owners. The petition cannot be thrown out on the ground that some of the co-owners have not been made parties to this proceeding. We agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners only have an undivided share in the subject land, this petition shall enure to their benefit and also to the benefit of the other co-owners who are not before this court. We are not called upon to decide the issue of the apportionment of their shares or the inter-se claims between the co-owners. In fact we are not deciding the issue of title at all.

5. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 08, 2014 mk