Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor and Mr. Kaushal Mehta, Advs. (M:8076682348) v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

(i) Insofar as the Khasra No.315 min (3-0) is concerned, jhuggis and houses are built up thereon;

(ii) In respect of Khasra No.311-315 min (0-10) it is recorded that there was a stay against possession granted by the High Court;

(iii) In respect of remaining land forming part of Khasra No.315 and the land falling in Khasra Nos. 311-315 min (271-0), 343 (4-16), 344 (4- 16), the physical possession has been taken over at site and handed over to the Land and Building Department by the representative of the acquiring authority.

(iv) The only land that was left out from the possession was Khasra No.315

9. Thereby, the possession of the land forming part of Khasra Nos. 315, 343 and 344, was taken over by the Government.

10. It is agreed that some parts of Khasra No.315 were left out from possession. The aforesaid possession proceedings are clear as to the extent of the land with respect of which the possession was taken over.

11. Subsequent to the passing of the Award and possession proceedings, writ petition being C.W.P. No. 3266/1982 was dismissed for non-prosecution.

12. Insofar as the compensation amount issued pursuant to the possession proceedings are concerned, the details are set out below:

13. The legal heirs claiming rights through late Sh. Bunda filed three writ petitions seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land falling in Khasra Nos. 315, 343, 344 have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair compensation and Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.The said three writ petitions and the details thereof are relevant and set out below:

MAQBOOL & ANR.

VERSUS

GOVT. N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS. 2 W.P.(C) 8912/2014 SHAKRUDDIN & ORS.

VERSUS

VERSUS

14. The aforesaid three writ petitions were disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11th April, 2017 following the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirinal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183. On the basis of the said judgment, it was held that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land admeasuring Khasra Nos.315 (3-10), 343 and 344/1 had lapsed. The order dated 11th April, 2017 is extracted as under: “ The brief facts are that the suit lands were covered by the Notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 10.11.1960; declaration under Section 6 was published on 06.01.1969. Notices were apparently issued to the land owners and the suit lands were covered by Award No.63/1982-83. Apparently, the petitioner had approached this Court and challenged the acquisition. The Court had directed maintenance of status quo and required the respondents to not dispossess the petitioners. The petitioners submit in these circumstances that since the possession was not taken nor was compensation paid, the acquisition had elapsed. It is also submitted that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and the other subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court which have examined the effect of absence of provisions similar to the proviso to Section 11A and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is pending consideration before the larger three Judge Bench. The respondents, i.e., LAC in the counter affidavit avers that the lands were acquired for the purpose of land development of Delhi and that substantial parts thereof was in fact taken over after the Award on 04.03.1983. It is also stated that only the lands covered in Khasra No.315 (to the extent of 3-10) could not be taken over because of the interim order made by this Court. The respondents also contend that the possession of lands which were taken over was made over to the DDA for development. As far as compensation is concerned, the position of the GNCTD is that for two Khasras, i.e., Khasra Nos.331 and 341, the payments were made to the petitioner. It is submitted that with respect to Khasra No.315 (to the extent of 3-10 bighas), the amounts were remitted to the Court of the ADJ under Section 30/31. As far as Khasra nos.343 and 344 are concerned, it is stated that the lands belonged to the custodian; consequently, there was no question of depositing compensation. It is evident from an overall reading of the materials on record that as to the nature of possession, and payment of compensation, the petitioners are clearly entitled to reliefs in respect of Khasra no.315 (to the extent of 3-10 bighas) as well as Khasra nos.343 & 344. Though, the respondents have stated and averred in the pleadings that Khasra Nos.343 & 344 belong to the custodian, neither Notification under Section 4 nor the declaration under Section 6, nor indeed the Award, disclosed the ownership. On the other hand, this Court in a previous order in respect of the identical land Khasra no.343 ( 4-16) to the extent of 1/17th share had directed release in the following terms in Rajan Shanna & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (W.P.(C) 8416/2014, decided on 07.04.2015):- "1. The petitioners seek 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. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award NO. 63/1982-83 dated 31.01.1983 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 337 (4-16), 340 (4-16) and 343 (4-16) measuring 14 bighas and 8 biswas (1/17th Share) in all in village Pul Pahladpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

XXX XXX XXX

4. 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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs." The judgment of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr V. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and the other judgments that have followed it, i.e., (1) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors:_ Civil Appeal No.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court. are clear in that the declaration in the acquisition proceedings so far as they pertain to Khasra no.315 (3 Bigha 10 Biswas) and 343 & 344 are deemed to have elapsed. So far as the question of inability of the State to take over possession on account of pendency of proceedings and stay orders is concerned, the law as it exists is clear and has been enunciated in the judgment cited by the petitioners. In the event of any change, doubtlessly, the respondents would be entitled to the relief in accordance with law. "”

15. In terms of the above order, it can be seen that the Coordinate Bench had followed the decision in W.P.(C) 8416/2014 titled Rajan Sharma & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein vide order dated 7th April, 2015, in respect of other lands of Village Pul Pahladpur, the lands had been released, since the acquisition proceedings initiated were deemed to have lapsed.

16. The order dated 11th April, 2017 was challenged by the Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘DDA’) in SLP (C) Diary No.3245/2022 titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Shakruddin & Ors. along with SLP (C) Diary No.32513/2021 and SLP (C) Diary No..30218/2021. Vide order dated 29th September, 2022, the Supreme Court directed as under: “Delay condoned. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 11-04-2017 passed by the High court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition

(Civil) Nos. 8912/2014 and 573/2015, by which the

High Court has allowed the said writ petitions preferred by the respective respondents/original writ petitioners and has declared that with respect to the land in question, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority have preferred the present appeals. It is not in dispute and even from the impugned common judgement and order passed by the High Court, it is apparent that while disposing of the respective Writ Petitions, the High court has heavily relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and further decisions following the decision in the case of Pune Municipal corporation (supra). However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal corporation (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. There are serious disputes with respect to possession taken over as well as the compensation. From the material on record, it appears that the litigation was pending and there was an order of status quo with respect to some portion of the acquired land. All these factual aspects are required to be considered by the High Court on the basis of material on record and/or the material that may be produced on record. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court to be quashed and set aside and the matters to be remanded to the High court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and considering the observations made by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and/or any other decision (s) which may be placed before the High court because there is subsequent decision on the order of Status quo. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned common judgement and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court to decide and dispose of the Writ Petitions afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and in light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). It will be open for the respective parties to file additional material on record on the possession and/or the compensation and/or even the order of status quo and/or pending litigation, which may be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits. The present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent and stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.”

17. In terms of the above order, the Supreme Court observed that the judgement in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) had been set aside by the decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In addition, it was also held that the order dated 11th April, 2017, passed by this Court, is quashed and set aside. Thereafter, the matter was remanded to this Court for fresh adjudication.

18. Insofar as SLP(C) Diary No. 28141/2021 titled ‘DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and Ors. is concerned, which arose out of the W.P.(C) 7716/2014 that had challenged the land acquisition under the same award, the same was tagged with the batch of matters titled SLP(C) 26687/2019 titled ‘Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.’

19. The Supreme Court rendered the judgement in DDA v. Tejpal (Supra) on 17th May, 2024. In the said judgement, SLP(C) Diary No. 28141/2021 titled ‘DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and Ors. was listed as part of List E[2], at Serial No.109, in respect of which the land acquisition was upheld. The relevant table in the said decision is set out below:

20. Thus, in respect of writ petitions being W.P.(C) 573/2015 titled ‘Jan Mohammad v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.’ and W.P.(C) 8912/2014 titled ‘Shakruddin and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.’ the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court vide order dated 29th September, 2022.

21. However, in respect of W.P.(C) 7716/2014 titled ‘Mohd. Maqbool and Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi’ the land acquisition proceeding was upheld and the Supreme Court vide order dated 17th May, 2024, in DDA v. Tejpal (Supra) passed the direction to the effect that the possession of the land would be taken. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

22. In the interregnum, another fact deserves to be noted. Proceedings in a reference petition under Section 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 were initiated before the ld. District Judge being LAC No. 51/2016 titled Union of India v. Gaon Sabha Pul Pehladpur. Vide order dated 22nd December, 2018, ld. District Judge came to the conclusion that all the legal heirs of late Sh. Bunda were illegal occupants of the land and late Sh.Bunda was also an illegal occupant. The relevant portion of the order dated 22nd December, 2018 is set out below:

23. The aforesaid order dated 22nd December, 2018 was challenged by some of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Bunda in LA. APP. 26/2019 titled ‘Sh. Babu (since deceased) Thr Lrs v. Union of India and Ors.’. In the said appeal, vide order dated 27th February, 2019, this Court had granted an interim order only in respect of the compensation. The said order reads as under: “Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is present on advance notice. Initial submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner. Notice of the appeal ·and of the accompanying applications CM.APPL.No.9604/2019 & CM.APPL. No.9606/2019 is accepted on behalf of the respondent no.1 and notice thereof be issued to the respondent nos. 2, 5 & 6 stated to be the only IPs granted relief vide the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2018 by the learned ADJ -02, South in LAC No.51/16 on taking of steps by the petitioner through all permissible modes, process returnable for 14.05.2019. Response, if any, of the respondent no.1 be filed before the next date of hearing. Till the next date hearing, the release of the payment awarded in terms of the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2018 is stayed.”

24. The aforesaid appeal is stated to be pending before the ld. Single Judge of this Court. Submissions

25. Ms. Neha Kapoor, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has made the following submissions:

(i) Ld. Counsel submits that the DDA had a duty to disclose before the

Supreme Court in DDA v. Tejpal (Supra) that the Supreme Court had remanded the matter in connected petitions i.e., W.P.(C) 573/2015 titled ‘Jan Mohammad v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.’ and W.P.(C) 8912/2014 titled ‘Shakruddin and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors. vide order 29th September, 2022. Thus, it is submitted that DDA has committed perjury by not disclosing the true facts.

(ii) She also submits that pursuant to the remand order of the Supreme

Court, dated 29th September, 2022, this Court would have to examine each case on its own merits. Further, since possession of some portion of land admeasuring Khasra Nos. 315 had not been taken and neither the compensation had been paid, the land acquisition should be held to have been lapsed.

(iii) Reliance is also placed upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No.8526/2016 titled ‘DDA v. Rajan Sharma’, which was tagged with a case titled ‘DDA v. Veena Mahajan’ bearing Diary No.10069/2021’, wherein the Supreme Court, vide order dated 11th December, 2024 had passed a direction that within one year from the date of the order, the authorities shall complete acquisition proceedings.

(iv) According to her, since the order dated 11th April, 2017 had followed the decision in Rajan Sharma (supra), the order dated 11th December, 2024 of the Supreme Court ought to enure to the benefit of the Petitioners in respect of Khasra No.343.

26. On the other hand, Ms. Manika Tripathy, ld. Standing Counsel appearing for the DDA and ld. Counsel appearing for LAC submits that in SLP(C) Diary No. 28141/2021 titled ‘DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and Ors.’, the Award which is under challenge in these petitions, has been upheld fully and the land acquisition has also been upheld. Therefore, no relief is liable to be granted in these petitions.

27. Additionally, it is also submitted that by order dated 22nd December, 2018 passed by the ld. District Judge, legal heirs of late Shri Bunda have been held to be illegal occupants, consequently, the Petitioners would have no locus to challenge the impugned award.

28. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that the decision in DDA v. Tejpal (Supra) would not apply to the Petitioners. It would only apply, if any, in case of the share of Mohd. Maqbool. It is also submitted that the clarification which has been sought in W.P.(C) 12543/2024 deserves to be granted.

29. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.4 in W.P(C) 6194/2024 submits that an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest (South), Department of Forest and Wildlife, stating that certain land forming part of Khasra No.315 has been notified as a ridge reserve forest vide two Notifications dated 24th May, 1994 and 2nd April, 1996.

30. In fact, it is the stand of the Deputy Conservator of Forests (South), Department of Forest and Wildlife that the Petitioners have encroached upon a forest land. Relevant portion of the said affidavit is extracted below:

31. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that if the Notifications dated 24th May, 1994 and 2nd April, 1996, declaring the land as forest land is relied upon, the DDA did not have any locus to challenge the order passed by this Court dated 11th April, 2017 before the Supreme Court. This submission is refuted by ld. Counsel for the DDA.

32. Further, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that Notifications dated 24th May, 1994 and 2nd April, 1996 declaring the land as forest land were never brought to the notice of the Supreme Court.

33. Ld. Counsel for the DDA submits that the DDA was, in fact, the main beneficiary of the acquisition and SDM had transferred the land to the forest department. Analysis and Findings

34. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the records. The impugned Award in the present three petitions is the same as in the case of DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and Ors. (supra).

35. The Petitioners cannot claim to have separate rights, inasmuch as Mohd. Maqbool and the Petitioners are similarly placed, being legal heirs of Late Sh. Bunda. The manner in which the Petitioners herein seek to distinguish themselves from Mohd. Maqbool would not be tenable.

36. Even if the cases are taken to be one of remand, on facts, the Court has perused the order dated 22nd December, 2018 passed by the District Judge, which has been extracted above. The said order is clear to the effect that late Sh. Bunda was himself an illegal occupant of the land.

37. The locus of the Petitioners has been defended by ld. Counsel for the Petitioners on the basis of the fact that when order dated 11th April, 2017, was passed, no issue relating to the Petitioners’ locus was raised, either by the DDA or the LAC. However, this would not be the correct position, inasmuch as those three writ petitions i.e., W.P.(C) 7716/2014, W.P.(C) 8912/2014, W.P.(C) 573/2015 were disposed of on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and at that stage, there was no occasion to go into the interest of the Petitioners in the land itself.

38. Thus, the order dated 11th April, 2017, cannot operate as res judicata in respect of the persons who do not have interest in the land and are illegal occupants.

39. Additionally, the findings of the District Judge vide order dated 22nd December, 2018 are absolutely clear. According to the Petitioners, the said order was filed before the Supreme Court with the counter affidavit, when the order dated 29th September, 2022 was passed – however, the same does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Supreme Court at the time of remand.

40. Even if it is taken as its best, the order dated 22nd December, 2018 would be required to be considered post the order dated 29th September, 2022 passed by the Supreme Court, where the directions are clear to the effect that individual cases would have to be considered afresh. Taking this position into consideration, the findings of the District Judge that the Petitioners are illegal occupants of the land and the predecessor in interest late. Sh. Bunda was also an illegal occupant, goes to the root of the matter.

41. So long as the finding in the pending LA. APP. 26/2019 is not disturbed, in the opinion of this Court, the present writ petitions would not be maintainable.

42. Moreover, the possession of land, insofar as Khasra Nos.343 and 344 has already been taken, which is also recorded above. The ld. Counsel for the Petitioners claims that her right would be restricted to 3 bighas 10 biswas of Khasra No.315, where the Petitioners are in possession. If the Petitioners are in possession and are persons interested, at best, they may have a right to seek a share in the compensation in proceedings before the LAC.

43. The acquisition of land cannot be held to have lapsed as the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court vide the judgement dated 17th May, 2024 in DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and Ors. (supra) and most of the land possession has already been taken over by the Government. Additionally, a substantial amount of compensation also stands deposited. Thus, the prayer for holding that the acquisition has lapsed is not tenable.

44. Accordingly, the Petitioners are relegated to avail of their remedies in respect of compensation in accordance with law.

45. The present petitions are disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE FEBRUARY 12, 2026/dk/sm