Oruj Ahmed v. Rashiduddin & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 30 Sep 2014 · 2014:DHC:5158

G. S. Sistani

CS(OS) 2310/2011

2014:DHC:5158

property petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that a sale of land after issuance of acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act is null and void, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for ownership and possession.

Full Text

CS(OS) 2310/2011
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: September 30, 2014

CS(OS) 2310/2011
ORUJ AHMED ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr.Y.D. Nagar, Adv.

VERSUS

RASHIDUDDIN & ORS ..... Defendants
Through : Mr.Anwarali Khan, Adv. for D-1.
Mr.Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Tamin Dadri, Adv. for defendants no.2 and 3.
Mr.Siddharth Panda, Adv. for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for LAC.
Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Adv. for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.,(Oral)

JUDGMENT

1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with the following prayers: (a) pass a decree for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the plot measuring 400 sq. yards, comprising Khasra No.378/172, (measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas), Khewat Jamabandi No.93 (Min) Khatauni No.243, as per Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 of Revenue Estate of Village Okhla Distt. Delhi, and as per site plan attached herewith; (b) pass a decree for possession against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the above said land/plot as detailed in (a) above and site plan attached herewith;

(c) to pass decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the above said plot forcibly and illegally.

2. This is an application filed by defendants no.1 and 2/applicants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaintiff. 2014:DHC:5158

3. The present suit pertains to a plot bearing no.33, measuring 400 sq. yards, located in Khasra No.378/172, measuring 2 Bighas, 3 Biswas, situated at Johri Farm, Okhla, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) recorded in the revenue record under the ownership of Sh.Abdul Rehman.

4. Before the rival submissions of counsel for the parties can be noticed the facts of the case are that one, Sh.Abdul Rehman, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Sh.Rashiduddin, defendant no.1 herein, who entered into physical possession through his maternal grand-father, Sh.Abdul Rehman, and was represented by the General Power of Attorney holder, defendant no.1 in various litigations in this Court and subordinate Courts.

5. Admittedly, as stated in the plaint, the property was notified under the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4 Notification was issued in the year 1964. Thereafter Section 6 Notification was issued in the year 1966. Finally an award was made in the year 1983-84 being Award No.95/83-84 and publication was carried out. However, physical possession of the suit property was neither taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector nor the LAB, nor the DDA as it was a built up area.

6. While, it is the case of the plaintiff and defendant no.1, who supports the case of the plaintiff, that as neither the acquisition proceedings cannot be treated as concluded, the compensation was paid nor the possession was taken over, however, it is the case of the Land Acquisition Collector that on account of disputes the compensation stands deposited with the Revenue Department under Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the land in question having purchased the same from defendant no.1 in the year 2009.

7. While defendant no.1, who is the initial owner, supports the case of the plaintiff, the present application for rejection of the plaint has been filed by defendants no.2 and 3. Since it was unclear as to whether the possession of the land had been taken or not and also whether any land had been de-notified a direction was issued to the LAC and DDA to file their affidavits.

8. As per the affidavit filed by DDA, the subject property, was initially under the Development Area No.127 with the DDA, however, the said Development Area has been de-notified and now the South Delhi Municipal Corporation is looking after all the building activities in the said Development Area. Paras 1, 2 and of this affidavit read as under:

“1. It is submitted that concerned Khasra i.e. Khasra No.378/172, Gali No.1, Johri Farm, Noor Nagar Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi was initially under the Development Area No.127 with the DDA. However, vide Notification No.F12(49)/09/L&B/Plg/516 dated 19.04.2011, the said Development Area has been de-notified and now the South Delhi Municipal Corporation is looking after all the building activities in the said Development Area. 2. Furthermore, as per the record of the Land Revenue Department, the said Khasra No.378/172 had been acquired by the LAC vide Award No.95/83-84. Howeever, the said Khara was since the built up area, therefore, the possession was not handed over by the LAC to the DDA. 3. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, since the Khasra No.378/172, Gali No.1, Jhori Farm, Noor Nagar Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi was neither in the possession of the DDA nor the same is under the Development Area of DDA, therefore, in these circumstances, the DDA has no role in the present matter. It is further respectfully submitted that since the South Delhi Municipal Corporation is looking after all the building activities of the said area, therefore, the name of Delhi Development Authority may kindly be deleted from the array of parties.”

9. Para 2 of the affidavit filed by LAC reads as under:

“2. That as per the available records, Khasra No.378/172 (2-3), Okhla, had been notified under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 vide Notification dated 04.04.64 and declaration U/s 6 dated 07.12.66. An Award being Award No.95/83-84, Village Okhla has been made and as per the Award Register there are no possession proceedings in respect of the aforesaid Khasra Numbers. Possession has not been taken over or handed over to the requisition deptt. And as per the record available, Compensation has not been paid/taken by any one due to dispute and the said compensation amount has been sent to RD.”

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that since the possession of the land in question was not taken over by the Government the acquisition proceedings would have no effect in view of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and further it was open for the owner to deal with the land in any manner he may so choose.

11. Reliance is placed on The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and Others v. M/s Godrej and Boyce, reported at AIR 1987 SC 2421, more particularly para 5, which read as under.

“5. We are of opinion that the High Court erred in striking down the order under s. 48 and compelling the State Government to acquire the lands of the respondent. Under the scheme of the Act, neither the notification under section 4 nor the declaration under section 6 nor the notice under section 9 is sufficient to divest the original owner of, or other person interested in, the land of his rights therein. Section 16 makes it clear beyond doubt that the title to the land vests in the Government only when possession is taken by the Government. Till that point of time, the land continues to be with the original owner and he is also free (except where there is specific legislation to the contrary) to deal with the land just as he likes, although it may be that on account of the pendency of proceedings for acquisition intending purchasers may be chary of coming near the land. So long as possession is not taken over, the mere fact of a notification under section 4 nor declaration under

23,377 characters total

section 6 having been made does not divest the owner of his rights in respect of the land or relieve him of the duty to take care of the land and protect it against encroachments. Again, such a notification does not either confer on the State Govt. any right to interfere with the ownership or other rights in the land or impose on it any duty to remove encroachments therefrom or in any other way safe-guard the interests of the original owner of the land. It is in view of this position, that the owner's interests remain unaffected until possession is taken, that section 48 gives a liberty to the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession is taken. By such withdrawal no irreparable prejudice is caused to the owner of the land, and if at all he has suffered any damage in cor quence of the acquisition proceedings or incurred costs in relation thereto, he will be compensated therefor under s. 48(2). In this view of the matter, it does not matter even if there is lapse of considerable time between the original notification and the withdrawal under section 48 as held in Trustees of Bai Smarth Jain Shvetambar Murtipujak Gyanodhyaya Trust and others v. State of Gujarat and another., AIR 1981 Gujarat 107. It also follows that the State can be permitted to exercise its power of withdrawal unilaterally and no requirement that the owner of the land should be given an opportunity of being heard before doing so should be read into the provision.”

12. Mr.Bhasin, learned senior counsel for the applicants, submits that the present suit is not maintainable as there is an absolute bar under Section 3 of Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, as per which no person shall transfer by sale, mortgage, gift or else or otherwise any land or part thereof, which has been acquired by the Central Government. Mr.Bhasin further submits that there are catena of judgments, which have held that any transfer after Sections 4 and 6 Notifications are null and void. Reliance is placed by learned senior counsel for the applicants in the case of Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., reported at [2008] 10 SCR 1012.

13. Another argument, which has been raised by Mr.Bhasin is that defendant no.1 claims to be the owner of the land, who had sold the same to the plaintiff, had filed a suit in Delhi High Court, being CS(OS)2855/1996, on an application made under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the said suit was dismissed on 29.8.2001.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint. Defendants 1 & 2 seek rejection of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as he is not the owner of the land with regard to which declaration is sought for the reason that any sale after section 4 and 6 is a nullity. In the case of Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., reported at [2008] 10 SCR 1012, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“11. The said contentions of the appellants were refuted by Shri Parag P. Tripathi, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents drawing our attention to the various records including the contents of the notifications. It was submitted that the possession of the land in question has already been taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer on 27.01.2000, although the said fact is refuted by the appellants. On appreciation of the records placed before us and also the aforesaid contentions which are raised we now proceed to dispose of these appeals by recording our findings and conclusions. 12. When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State Government strictly in accordance with law. The said notification is also required to be followed by a declaration to be made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a notification any encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of such a notification would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the government. A number of decisions of this Court have recognized the aforesaid proposition of law wherein it was held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking

possession of the land after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and another vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 124 it was stated by this Court that: "3.............Having regard to the facts of this case, we were not inclined to further adjourn the case nor to remit the case for fresh consideration by the High Court. It is well settled law that after the notification under Section 4(1) is published in the Gazette any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property....." In Sneh Prabha (Smt) and others vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (1996) 7 SCC 426 at 430 it is stated as under: "5.......It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out and an implement to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorizes the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries etc. Therefore, any alienation of the land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, title and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder......" The said proposition of law was also reiterated in the cases of Ajay Kishan Shinghal & Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 10 SCC 721 and Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 11 SCC 698.

13. In view of the aforesaid decisions it is by now well settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get the compensation.”

15. Since it is not in dispute that Section 4 Notification was issued on 4.4.1964 and a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 7.12.1966. Thereafter an award was made in the year 1983-84 and having regard to the settled position of law as detailed in Meera Sahni v. Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors (supra) any sale in favour of the plaintiff would be a nullity as the plaintiff purchased the suit property in the year 2009 after sections 4 & 6 notifications and accordingly the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit.

16. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that since the possession of land has not been taken over and no compensation paid the land would automatically stands de-notified is without any merit. Reliance is placed on the affidavit of DDA is misplaced and without any force, as the affidavit only shows that the land in question was in a development area No.127 with the DDA and as per the DDA the developing area stands de-notified.

17. In Shanti Sports Club and Anr. V. Union of India & Ors.: AIR 2010 Supreme Court 443, the Supreme Court has held that in case of withdrawal of a notification of acquisition, the withdrawal has to be notified, which read as under: “28. The requirement of issuing a notification for exercise of power under Section 48(1) of the Act to withdraw from the acquisition of the land can also be inferred from the judgments of this Court in Municipal Committee, Bhatinda v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (1993) 3 SCC 24 (para 8), U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others (1995) Supp 3 SCC 538 (para 3), State of Maharashtra and another v. Umashankar Rajabhau and others (1996) 1 SCC 299 (para 3) and State of T.N. and others v. L. Krishnan and others (1996) 7 SCC 450 (para 7). In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and others (1998) 4 SCC 387, the Court considered the question whether the power under Section 48(1) of the Act can be exercised by the Government without notifying the factum of withdrawal to the beneficiary of the acquisition. It was argued that in contrast to Sections 4 and 6, Section 48(1) of the Act does not contemplate issue of any notification and withdrawal from the acquisition can be done by an order simpliciter. It was further argued that power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act can be exercised for withdrawing notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6. While rejecting the argument, the Court observed: "..... When Sections 4 and 6 notifications are issued, much has been done towards the acquisition process and that process cannot be reversed merely by rescinding those notifications. Rather it is Section 48 under which, after withdrawal from acquisition is made, compensation due for any damage suffered by the owner during the course of acquisition proceedings is determined and given to him. It is, therefore, implicit that withdrawal from acquisition has to be notified.

31. Principles of law are, therefore, well settled. A notification in the Official Gazette is required to be issued if the State Government decides to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 of the Act of any land of which possession has not been taken. An owner need not be given any notice of the intention of the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition and the State Government is at liberty to do so. Rights of the owner are well protected by sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Act and if he suffered any damage in consequence of the acquisition proceedings, he is to be compensated and sub-section (3) of Section 48 provides as to how such compensation is to be determined. There is, therefore, no difficulty when it is the owner whose land is withdrawn from acquisition is concerned. However, in the case of a company, opportunity has to be given to it to show cause against any order which the State Government proposes to make withdrawing from the acquisition. Reasons for this are not far to seek. After notification under Section 4 is issued, when it appears to the State Government that the land in any locality is needed for a company, any person interested in such land which has been notified can file objections under Section 5-A(1) of the Act. Such objections are to be made to the Collector in writing and who after giving the objector an opportunity of being heard and after hearing of such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the Collector thinks necessary, is to make a report to the State Government for its decision. Then the decision of the State Government on the objections is final. Before the applicability of other provisions in the process of acquisition, in the case of a company, previous consent of the State Government is required under Section 39 of the Act nor (sic) unless the company shall have executed the agreement as provided in Section 41 of the Act. Before giving such consent, Section 40 contemplates a previous enquiry. Then compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963 is mandatorily required. After the stage of Sections 40 and 41 is reached, the agreement so entered into by the company with the State Government is to be published in the Official Gazette. This is Section 42 of the Act which provides that the agreement on its publication would have the same effect as if it had formed part of the Act. After having done all this, the State Government cannot unilaterally and without notice to the company withdraw from acquisition. Opportunity has to be given to the company to show cause against the proposed action of the State Government to withdraw from acquisition. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made by notification only after formalities under Part VII of the Act which contains Sections 39 to 42 have been complied and the report of the Collector under Section 5-A(2) of the Act is before the State Government who consents to acquire the land on its satisfaction that it is needed for the company. A valuable right, thus, accrues to the company to oppose the proposed decision of the State Government withdrawing from acquisition. The State Government may have sound reasons to withdraw from acquisition but those must be made known to the company which may have equally sound reasons or perhaps more, which might persuade the State Government to reverse its decision withdrawing from acquisition. In this view of the matter it has to be held that Yadi (memo) dated 11-4-1991 and Yadi (memo) dated 3-5-1991 were issued without notice to the appellant (L&T Ltd.) and are, thus, not legal." (emphasis added)

18. The affidavit filed by the LAC shows that the land stands acquired. The plaintiff has failed to place on record any notification that the land stands de-notified.

19. This court cannot also loose track of the fact that an earlier suit [CS(OS)No 2855/1996 filed by defendant no.1 also stands dismissed on application made under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by an order dated 29.8.2001. Operative part of order dated 29.8.2001 reads as under:- “The defendants have filed IA No.3087/98 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stating that the plaintiffs cannot be the owners of the land as the land in question stands acquired by the Government for which notification was issued way back in the year 1964. In order to ascertain this fact, notice was issued to DDA and DDA has filed affidavit affirming the aforesaid position stating that the disputed land was acquired vide Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 7th December, 1966 and thereafter the Award dated 95/83-84 was made and land in question stands acquired vide aforesaid Notification in the year 1984. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs does not dispute this position. However, his submission is that the custodian, way back in December, 1961, declared the plaintiffs to be the owners of the land which is in illegal possession of the defendants. It may so. However, after that the land was acquired by the Government vide the aforesaid Notification and now vests with the DDA, thereafter, the plaintiffs cannot be given the declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the land. Once that is the position in law, their prayer for possession of the suit property also is not maintainable, as they have, as of today, no locus standi to file the suit with such a prayer. If the plaintiffs are aggrieved against the order of acquisition and their case is that it is wrongly passed and since there cannot be acquisition of land which was given to them under rehabilitation scheme, appropriate remedy for the plaintiffs is to challenge the Notification. The position which stands as of today is that the plaintiffs ceased to be the owners of the land after the same was acquired even if it is presumed that they are the owner earlier. This suit is therefore not maintainable. The IA No.3087/98 is allowed. Plaint is rejected.”

20. It is admitted position that the plaintiff purchased the land, in question, from defendant no.1 vide an Agreement to Sell and other supporting documents in the year 2009, much after the proceedings under Sections 4, 6 and 9 were initiated and an award was rendered.

21. In view of Section 3 of Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, as per which no person shall be entitled to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift or else or otherwise any land or part thereof, which has been acquired by the Central Government, the sale made by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff is null and void. Thus, in my view the present suit is not maintainable and no declaration can be granted to the plaintiff that he is the owner of the plot measuring 400 sq. yards, comprising Khasra No.378/172, (measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas), Khewat Jamabandi No.93 (Min) Khatauni No.243, as per Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 of Revenue Estate of Village Okhla Distt. Delhi and plaint is rejected.

22. Application stands disposed of in view of above. G.S.SISTANI, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 msr

Oruj Ahmed v. Rashiduddin & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation