M/S Kamdhenu Enterprises v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. 9971/2015 Vivek Khaitan v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. 20.10.2015 22.01.2025

2. 10193/2015 Rajesh Kumar v. GNCTD & Ors. 02.11.2015 22.01.2025

3. 10194/2015 Rakesh Kumar Goyal v. GNCTD & Ors.

4. 10189/2015 Ravindra Sharma v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

5. 10406/2015 Hari Krishan Murgai v. GNCTD & Ors. 06.11.2015 22.01.2025

6. 10435/2015 Mohammad Iqbal Salati v. Ors.

7. 10221/2015 Ranbir Singh v. Government of National Ors.

8. 10503/2015 Swarn Kanta Chadha v. Ors. 16.11.2015 22.01.2025

9. 10622/2015 Sudha Diwan v. Government of National Ors. 20.11.2015 22.01.2025

10. 10668/2015 Jyoti Sarup Mittal Builders and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. v. Ors. 20.11.2015 22.01.2025

11. 105/2017 Ess Jee Enterprises v. GNCTD & Ors. 09.01.2017 22.01.2025

14. It is further pointed out in the reply-cum-counter-affidavit that after hearing objections from 1414 persons excluding the petitioner company, declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act had been issued on 04.07.2017 but since the petitioner company obtained status quo from this Court vide order dated 13.01.2015 in W.P.(C) 259/2015 no fresh declaration could be issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, which stay order was eventually vacated vide impugned order dated 16.01.2019. It is thus stated that this Court in W.P.(C) 259/2015 while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 16.01.2019 held that no land acquisition award existed in respect of the land of the petitioner company. However, the acquisition proceedings had not been declared as lapsed, and therefore, the preliminary Notification dated 27.06.1996 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act still subsists.

ANALYSIS & DECISION:

15. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record and the case laws cited at the Bar, first things first, it would be expedient to reproduce the order dated 16.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 259/2015, which reads as follows:

(00-10) in Village Rangpuri, TehsilVasant Vihar, New Delhi. iii. Issue of an appropriate writ, order or directions land of Petitioner No. 3; Mr. Nikunj Jajodia admeasuring 1.4271 Acres i.e. 06 Bighas 17 Biswas as comprised in Khasra Nos. 1168 (00-17), 1169/4 (02-03), 1179 (02-16) and 1180 (01-01) in Village Rangpuri, Tehsil-Vasant Vihar, New Delhi as initiated vide notification bearing no. F.9(12)/95/L&B/LA/9743 dated 27.06.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and all subsequent proceedings to have lapsed in view of section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; iv. Pass any further order/s that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the Petitioners.”

2. From the narration of facts it is seen that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA) read with Section 17(1) & (4) thereof for acquisition of 1337 bighas and 4 biswas of land situated in Revenue Estate of Village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri for the public purposes of development of Vasant Kunj phase-IV under the planned Development of Delhi was passed on 27th June 1996. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of LAA on 10th January 1997.

3. WP (C) 5494 of 1999 (Seema Jajodia & Ors. v. Union of India) was filed in this Court challenging the above proceedings. Some other similarly placed persons filed WP (C) 1953 of 1997 (Vasant Kunj Enclave Housing Welfare Society v. Union of India & Ors.).

4. By a judgment dated 5th May 2006 this Court partly allowed the above writ petitions whereby a part of the notification dated 27th June 1996 was quashed inasmuch as it sought to invoke Section 17 (4) of the LAA denying the landowners their right to file objection under Section 5-A of LAA. The SLP preferred by the GNCTD against the aforementioned decision, later converted into a Civil Appeal, was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27th April

2012. It is stated that a public notice inviting objections under Section 5-A of the LAA was issued on 21st November 2012 and the Petitioners filed their objections on 21st December 2012.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC (New Delhi) it is pointed out that it was on account of interim orders passed in various writ petitions that the acquisition proceedings qua the notified land could not be completed. It is submitted that except Khasra Nos.1165/3, 1171, 1178/1 and 1179 all khasra numbers in the subject writ petitions were part of WP (C) 7802 of

2012.

6. It is pointed out by way of the additional affidavit dated 12th March 2018, filed by the LAC that in view of the interim order passed by this Court in the present petition on 13th January 2015, the khasra numbers of the lands in question could not be included in the fresh declaration issued under Section 6 of the LAA dated 4th July 2017.

7. The net result is that there is no land acquisition Award in respect of the khasra numbers involving the lands of the Petitioners which survives. In the absence of any such Award, the question of issuing any declaration in terms of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act does not arise.

8. In that view of the matter the interim order passed by this Court is vacated. The writ petition is dismissed. This will expectedly pave the way for a Section 6 declaration to be issued in respect of the Petitioners’ lands as well, following which, it will be open to the Petitioners to pursue those matters in accordance with law.” {bold portions emphasized}

16. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clearly discernible that admittedly till today no fresh declaration is issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act qua the subject land belonging to the petitioner company. It is also a matter of record that public notice inviting objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act was issued on 21.11.2012 and objections were filed by the petitioner company on 21.12.2012. It is rightly urged that during the period 04.05.2012 to 03.05.2013, there was no status quo order qua the subject land, and thus, at first blush there was no embargo restricting the hands of the respondents from issuing any fresh declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.

17. Evidently, the respondents have been sitting over the objections which were filed by the petitioner company under Section 5A of the 1894 Act since 22.12.2012. Even if it is assumed that the stay in the present writ petition no. 259/2015, which was passed vide order dated 13.01.2015 was vacated on 16.01.2019, nothing prevented the respondents from issuing a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.

18. At this juncture, it may be noted that the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act can be made in respect of a part of the land notified and evidently as per the reply-cum-counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the declaration in respect of the parcels of land under the same notification under Section 5 of the 1894 Act has been issued on 04.07.2017. However, learned counsel for the respondents rightly invited the attention of this Court to the decisions by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhey Ram v. Union of India13 and Shivi Talwar vs GNCTD14.

19. Incidentally, the latter case is in respect of the acquisition of land vide notification under Section 4 dated 27.06.1996, the aspect of delay in bringing out declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was explained in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Sunil Khatri15 and it was pointed out that relying on the decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal16, wherein it was held that where the government/LAC was prevented from making a declaration under Sections 6 and 11 of the 1894 Act for there being in operation status quo orders by the Courts, the period which was consumed by the subsistence of the Court‟s order has to be excluded. The said dictum was based on the Roman Law maxim „Nemo Tenetur Ad Impossibile’, meaning thereby that no one is bound to do an impossibility. It was held that the issue of lapsing of notification under Section 4 in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act did not arise since there was „no stay free period‟ of five years which could lead to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed.

20. It is doubtful if the aforementioned analogy could be applied to the instant case since as narrated above, there have been „stay free period‟ qua the land as also probably other parcels of land covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for more than 5 years and yet there is no declaration in sight under Section 1894 Act. At the cost of repetition there was no stay in effect qua the subject land between the period 04.05.2012 to 03.05.2013, and thereafter from 16.01.2019 till 15.01.2020 and even thereafter so as to put any fetters on the powers of the respondents to proceed for declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Be that as it may, it is a moot question as to how long and in what manner the respondent could take advantage of the overlapping Court orders, as the case may, with regard to the land sought to be acquired in terms of Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 27.06.1996 for bringing out requisite notification under Sections 6 & 11 of the 1894 Act. The said issue is independent and would be required to be answered in other appropriate legal proceedings when there is any further measure undertaken by the respondent.

21. Thus, all said and done, we are not concerned in the instant petition about the issue of subsistence or not of any period extended for bringing out a declaration under Section 6 and consequential measures. In the instant petition, this Court is concerned with a limited issue as to whether the stand of the respondents is in deliberate defiance to the direction passed by this Court dated 16.01.2019.

22. To answer the same, it would be pertinent to reproduce the contents of paragraph (35) of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, which read as under: “That the aforesaid rejection of NOC/LSR has occurred inadvertently mentioning the reason for rejection that the aforesaid land is acquired vide Award No.2/98-99. This has happened due to the fact that there is no mention of lapse of award in respect of Khasra No. 1162 (1-00), 1163 ( 4-08), 1165/1 (1-00), 1165/2 min (0-4), 1165/3 (03-12), 1170 (00- 04) in Land Record Register and also due to the fact that the applicant/petitioners didn‟t upload the order dated 16.01.2019 in the supporting documents of the aforesaid application. However, in view of the facts as stated above and particularly regarding various overlapping stay periods which is to be excluded as provided in law, the petitioners cannot deny the fact that land acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 27.06.1996 under Section 4 of the LA Act are still pending/subsisting and that the Government still has 194 days' time to issue declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act. It is most humbly submitted that the rejection of the NOC/LSR on the ground that aforesaid land is acquired vide Award No.2/98-99 may not be considered as contumacious or contempt of the Hon 'ble Court or non-compliance of the judgment/order dated 16.01.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.259/2015 filed by the petitioners as the same is unintentional and neither deliberate nor willful nor has been made knowingly. It is further submitted that in view of the provisions of the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, no NOC/LSR can be granted in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands that are subject matter of pending/subsisting acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 27.06.1996 under Section 4 of the LA Act.”

23. A bare perusal of the aforementioned reply-cum-affidavit would reveal how the respondents in a very cleverly conceived reply-cumaffidavit are trying to blow hot and cold in the same breath and not addressing the real issue. The petitioner company cannot be blamed if the revenue authorities have not updated their records. There is clearly admission on their part by virtue of the aforesaid paragraph that the subject land belonging to the petitioner company is free from any kind of declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act to date.

24. Even assuming for the sake of convenience that the respondents have not been able to bring about declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act for multiple Court orders passed in respect of other parcels of land vide the same notification, it is not comprehendible as to why the respondents are dragging their feet in issuing the NOC/LSR as the petitioner company is not only hitherto the owner of the subject land or “person interested” in terms of Section 3(b)17 of the Act in as much as the subject land already stands mutated in its name on 29.09.2012, after the relevant notification was issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 27.06.1996.

25. It is well ordained in law that after the declaration of notification under Section 4, any sale of the land acquired by its owners is not binding against the State, and rather such sale would be considered to be void against the State. This means that the buyer will have no legal right to challenge the validity of the notification or any purported action of taking over the possession of the land before or after the publication of the declaration under the 1894 Act or for that matter under the 2013 Act. However, if such sale is effected, the 17(b) the expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land; buyer would step into the shoes of the owner and can seek compensation in accordance with law.

26. In order to substantiate the aforesaid view, reference can be invited to the decisions in U.P. Jal Nigam, Luknow v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd.18, wherein the owner of the acquired land had filed application seeking compensation under Section 23(1) and the buyer of the subject land after notification issued under Section 4(1) was held entitled to pursue such application only without any legal right to challenge the notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. The ratio was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar v. Union of India19, wherein, in reference to the definition of the expression „affected family‟ under Section 3(c)20 and that of „landowner‟ under Section 3(r)21 of the 2013 Act it was held that after the issuance of notification for acquisition of land under Section 11 of

20 3(c) “affected family” includes— (i) a family whose land or other immovable property has been acquired; (ii) a family which does not own any land but a member or members of such family may be agricultural labourers, tenants including any form of tenancy or holding of usufruct right, sharecroppers or artisans or who may be working in the affected area for three years prior to the acquisition of the land, whose primary source of livelihood stand affected by the acquisition of land; (iii) the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have lost any of their forest rights recognised under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) due to acquisition of land; (iv) family whose primary source of livelihood for three years prior to the acquisition of the land is dependent on forests or water bodies and includes gatherers of forest produce, hunters, fisher folk and boatmen and such livelihood is affected due to acquisition of land; (v) a member of the family who has been assigned land by the State Government or the Central Government under any of its schemes and such land is under acquisition; (vi) a family residing on any land in the urban areas for preceding three years or more prior to the acquisition of the land or whose primary source of livelihood for three years prior to the acquisition of the land is affected by the acquisition of such land; horticulture; 21 3(r) “land owner” includes any person,— (i) whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building or part thereof, in the records of the authority concerned; or (ii) any person who is granted forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the land under any law of the State including assigned lands; or (iv) any person who has been declared as such by an order of the court or Authority; the 2013 Act have no legal recognition to seek any relief under the said Act.

27. In the said view of the matter, the respondents are clearly guilty of wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court inasmuch as they are wrongfully taking shelter behind their revenue records, which are not updated and wrongly claiming that the subject land stands acquired, and thereby deliberately denying the petitioner company the benefits which have accrued to it by default on the part of the respondents as expressed in directions of this Court dated 16.01.2019.

28. In view of the above discussion, reiterating the previous order dated 18.09.2024 the respondents are held guilty of wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court. In order to allow them to purge themselves of the action in contempt, the respondents are directed to issue NOC/LSR to the petitioner company within three weeks from today after updating their revenue record in appropriate manner, failing which the ADM as well as SDM concerned shall appear in person before this Court in person for hearing on the issue of punishment and quantum of sentence on 14.01.2025.

29. The present contempt petition stands disposed of.

30. Re-notify on 14.01.2025.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 16, 2024