Full Text
Translation output
.' $- HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 583/2013
SH. MANGE RAM ..... Petitioner
W.P.(C) 583/2013
SH. MANGE RAM ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 586/2013
SH. TARA CHAND ..... Petitioner J
SH. TARA CHAND ..... Petitioner J
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 638/2013
SH. PREM CHAND ..... Petitioner
SH. PREM CHAND ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ANR ..~.. Respondents
W.P.(C) 639/2013
SH. JAGBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
SH. JAGBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI .AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Adv. for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. for Respondent No.1.
WP (C) Nos.~8312013, 58612013, 638-639/2013 Page 1 of4
2013:DHC:7216-DB.'
#- •
Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Adv. for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. for Respondent No.1.
WP (C) Nos.~8312013, 58612013, 638-639/2013 Page 1 of4
2013:DHC:7216-DB.'
#- •
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
01.02.2013 CM No.112112013 (Exemption) in WP (C) No.583/2013
CM No.1124/2013 (Exemption) in WP (C) No.586/2013
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
WP (C) No.583/2013 & CM No.1120/2013 (Stay)
WP (C) No.586/2013 & CM No.1123/2013 (Stay)
WP (C) No.638/2013 & CM No.1209/2013 (Stay)
WP (C) No.639/2013 & CM No.1210/2013 (Stay)
A reading ofthe petitions shows that one Ms. Sushma who is stated to be the grand-daughter of Shri Ram Swaroop filed a -Writ Petition (Civil)
No.1073/2012 claiming a share in the land which stood acquired on the basis that she was in cultivatory possession. It appears that the compensation was paid out to the petitioners before us in the year 2004. In the petition a twin prayer was made, i.e., that the compensation has been wrongly disbursed and that the dispute ought to be referred to the reference court under Sections
30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said
Act'). This writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on
24.2.2012. In the said order it is recorded that the counsel for the petitioner therein confined the prayer only to the reference ofthe:? dispute under Section
30/31 of the said Act, i.e., gave up the prayer for recovery of compensation already paid out. However, the same order records the stand of the respondent that the compensation which had been released to Shri Ram
WP (C) Nos.583/2013, 58612013, 638-63912013 Page 2of4
2013:DHC:7216-DB
•
•
)
Swaroop was sought to be recovered from the parties to whom it had been disbursed. The writ petition was disposed ofwith the direction for reference of the disputes raised by the petitioner therein under Sections 30/31 of the said Act.
The controversy in the present petitions arises on account ofnotices of recovery issued to the parties to whom the compensation had been paid up.
It is stated that some of the notices had already been issued prior to the aforesaid petition (an aspect stated before that Court) whereas one notice has been issued thereafter.
It is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ms. Sushma has incorrectly raised the issue, did not implead the affected parties in that petition and obtained an order at the back ofthe petitioners herein.
We are of the view that the aforesaid may not be exactly true for the reason that some of the parties had already been issued notice prior to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The fact remains that there is dispute qua the compensation of the land which is sought to be referred under Sections 30/31 of the said Act and that LAC is required to deposit the amount before the reference court. It is to comply with the latter part that notices had been issued to parties to whom the compensation was disbursed to deposit the same with the LAC with interest so that, that amount can be deposited before the reference court.
Taking into consideration the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case where the compensation was disbursed a number ofyears ago, dispute has been raised now and the fact that Ms. Sushma did not specifically press the prayer to recover the compensation, as to what should be the interim
WP (C) Nos.583/2013, 586/2013, 638-63912013 Page 3 of4 directions qua the amounts already disbursed, whether they should be called upon to deposit the amount with the LAC to be transmitted to the reference court or whether this aspect can be substituted by security for restitution of amount as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioners before us ought to be decided by the reference court. Ordered accordingly.
The petitions and the applications stand disposed of.
FEBRUARY 01, 2013 b'nesh WP (C) Nos.58312013, 58612013, 638-63912013
SANJlY KISBAN KAUL, J.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Page 4 of4
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
01.02.2013 CM No.112112013 (Exemption) in WP (C) No.583/2013
CM No.1124/2013 (Exemption) in WP (C) No.586/2013
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
WP (C) No.583/2013 & CM No.1120/2013 (Stay)
WP (C) No.586/2013 & CM No.1123/2013 (Stay)
WP (C) No.638/2013 & CM No.1209/2013 (Stay)
WP (C) No.639/2013 & CM No.1210/2013 (Stay)
A reading ofthe petitions shows that one Ms. Sushma who is stated to be the grand-daughter of Shri Ram Swaroop filed a -Writ Petition (Civil)
No.1073/2012 claiming a share in the land which stood acquired on the basis that she was in cultivatory possession. It appears that the compensation was paid out to the petitioners before us in the year 2004. In the petition a twin prayer was made, i.e., that the compensation has been wrongly disbursed and that the dispute ought to be referred to the reference court under Sections
30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said
Act'). This writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on
24.2.2012. In the said order it is recorded that the counsel for the petitioner therein confined the prayer only to the reference ofthe:? dispute under Section
30/31 of the said Act, i.e., gave up the prayer for recovery of compensation already paid out. However, the same order records the stand of the respondent that the compensation which had been released to Shri Ram
WP (C) Nos.583/2013, 58612013, 638-63912013 Page 2of4
2013:DHC:7216-DB
•
•
)
Swaroop was sought to be recovered from the parties to whom it had been disbursed. The writ petition was disposed ofwith the direction for reference of the disputes raised by the petitioner therein under Sections 30/31 of the said Act.
The controversy in the present petitions arises on account ofnotices of recovery issued to the parties to whom the compensation had been paid up.
It is stated that some of the notices had already been issued prior to the aforesaid petition (an aspect stated before that Court) whereas one notice has been issued thereafter.
It is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ms. Sushma has incorrectly raised the issue, did not implead the affected parties in that petition and obtained an order at the back ofthe petitioners herein.
We are of the view that the aforesaid may not be exactly true for the reason that some of the parties had already been issued notice prior to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The fact remains that there is dispute qua the compensation of the land which is sought to be referred under Sections 30/31 of the said Act and that LAC is required to deposit the amount before the reference court. It is to comply with the latter part that notices had been issued to parties to whom the compensation was disbursed to deposit the same with the LAC with interest so that, that amount can be deposited before the reference court.
Taking into consideration the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case where the compensation was disbursed a number ofyears ago, dispute has been raised now and the fact that Ms. Sushma did not specifically press the prayer to recover the compensation, as to what should be the interim
WP (C) Nos.583/2013, 586/2013, 638-63912013 Page 3 of4 directions qua the amounts already disbursed, whether they should be called upon to deposit the amount with the LAC to be transmitted to the reference court or whether this aspect can be substituted by security for restitution of amount as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioners before us ought to be decided by the reference court. Ordered accordingly.
The petitions and the applications stand disposed of.
FEBRUARY 01, 2013 b'nesh WP (C) Nos.58312013, 58612013, 638-63912013
SANJlY KISBAN KAUL, J.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Page 4 of4
JUDGMENT