Dwarkaprasad v. Union of India

1. These are eight petitions arising out of a similar set of facts and seeking similar reliefs. They are,therefore, being disposed ofby a common order. Each ofthe petitions were nevertheless heard separately.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.(C) 8073/2018 [Dwarka Prasad v. Union ofIndia] are being referred to first. The prayer in the said petition reads as under: "a. Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of declaration, declaring the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect ofthe land comprised in Plot No.63,measuring 203 sq. yards,out of Khasra No. 37/19, in total area admeasuring 2 bigha 09 biswas situated in revenue estate of Village Najafgarh, Tehsil & District Delhi, area abadi known as Dwarka Vihar, Kakrola Road/More, Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043 to the extent ofshare owned by the Petitioner have lapsed in view ofthe provisions ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013." W.P,(C)8073/2018andconnected matters Page4of10

3. The background facts are that the land in question i.e. Plot No. 63, admeasuring 2Bighas 9 Biswas comprised in Khasra No.37/19,situated in the abadi Dwarka Vihar, Kakrola Road, Village Najafgarh, New Delhi(hereafter, 'subject land')was notified under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA')on 7^*^ April,2006.This wasfollowed by a declaration under Section[6] ofthe LAA on 4"^ April,2007.The Land Acquisition Collector('LAC')passed an award being Award No.05/2008-09/SW on 20""November,2008.

4. Asfar as the Petitioner is concerned,it is stated that the Petitioner purchased the subject land by way of a General Power of Attorney ('GPA') dated 28"" May, 1999 from Kundan Singh, who is stated to have been the owner of the subject land at the relevant time. A copy ofthe Khatami for the year 1989-90 and the aforementioned GPA has been annexed with the petition.

5. It is averred in the petition thatthe Petitioner has been inhabiting the subject land and that this is demonstrated by the electricity bills issued in his name. A copy ofthe electricity bills has been annexed with the petition.In para 8 ofthe petition,it is stated that at the time that the land was sought to be acquired,the Petitioner made multiple representations to the LAC.It is specifically averred that on June 25"",2008 the Petitioner put forth his objections before the LAC, Kapasera, New Delhi and thereafter, on February 19, 2009 filed for apportionment.It is further submitted that the Petitioner has not been paid any compensation till date.The petition then straightaway refers to the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, tV.P.(C)8073/2018andconnected matters Page5of10 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act ('2013 Act') and the Petitioner's entitlement to a declaration ofdeemed lapsing under Section 24(2)ofthe said Act on the ground that neither possession of the subject land been taken nor compensation paid.In this context,reference has been made to thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki(2014)3SCC 183. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in Jagjit Singh v. Union ofIndia [W.P.(C)2806/2004]to contend that the Petitioner's case stands on a similar footing and that therefore, the Court should grant him a declaration ofdeemed lapsing under Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents in reply to the petition.

6. In the companion writ petitions, nearly identical averments and prayers have been set forth. In fact, the contents ofthe writ petition only diverge insofar as the extent and the description ofthe subject lands in the abadi Dwarka Vihar, Kakrola Road, Village Najafgarh. They were acquired by the same award [Award No.5/2008-09/SW]and,accordingly,the writ petitions are all directed against the said award.

7. As far as the Respondents' replies to the companion writ petitions are concerned, the DDA has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C)Nos. 8124/2018, 8146/2018, 8147/2018, 8157/2018, 8171/2018. In all the aforesaid petitions, the DDA has stated that compensation of the amount of Rs.8,11,85,866/- has been paid to the landowners for the acquisition pursuant to the impugned W.P.(C)8073/2018andconnected matters Poge6of10 award. As all the Petitioners claim ownership over the subject land by a GPA executed in their favour, the DDA has questioned the validity of the Petitioners' title and accordingly, their locus to file the present petitions. Further, the DDA has submitted that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject lands have attained finality and any challenge to the same at this point is barred by inordinate delay and laches. In this context, reference has been made to thejudgments ofthe Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. Union ofIndia(2018)3SCC 588 and Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018)3see412.

8. The LAC in reply to W.P.(C)Nos.8124/2018,8158/2018 and 8171/2018 has filed a counter affidavit in each ofthe said petitions. It is stated therein that as per the Naksha Muntazamin a compensation ofRs.4,31,37,837/- was deposited in the Court of the ADJ by way of a cheque [cheque no. 847129] dated 27'^ December,2013.In respect ofpossession, it is submitted that possession ofthe land bearing Khasra Nos. 41//21/1 (1-2), 42//8/1 (1-2), 9/1/1 (3-5), 9/2 (3-4), 10/2(4-13), 11/1 (0-15), 12/2(4-8), 13/1 (1-9), 13/2/2(3-0), 14/1 (0-19), 16/2 (2-0), 1112 (3-7), 18/1/2 (1-3), 18/2 (3-7), 19/1/1 (0-7), 19/2/1 (0-12), 23/1/1 (1-0),24/1/1 (3-16),24/2(0-5),24/3/1 min(0-2),25/1-2-3(4-16),43//5min(3- 0), 6/1 (0-4), 6/2/1 (2-9), 49//4/1 (1-9),5(4-16), 6/1 (3-7), 15/1 (2-2), 50//1/7 (1-5), 1/2/1 (2-5), 9/1/1 (0-13), 10(4-16), 11/1-2(6-2), 12/2(3-07), 61 (1-5), 62(1-1)wastaken on 23'''November,2012and handed overto theDDA by the L&B.It is stated that possession ofthe land bearing Khasra Nos.42//1/1 (3-9), 2/2(0-10),43//2/1 (1-4), 3/2(3-8),4(4-16),7/1/1 (0-7), 36//13/2(2-0), 14(3- W.P.(C)8073/2018andconnected matters Page 7of10 13), 16(7-02), 25/1 (0-15), 37//18/1/1 (0-08), 19/1 (2-9),20/1 (5-01),21/1 (3- 9), 22(4-16), 23/1/1 (1-4), 23/2(3-06), 24/1/1 (0-11), 24/2(2-08), 25/1 (1-2), 25/2 min(0-03)has not been taken.

9. No rejoinder has been filed on behalfofany ofthe Petitioners to the counter affidavits of the LAC or the DDA. Be that as it may, the subject lands in all instances are situated in the abadi Dwarka Vihar, Kakrola Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi, which is an unauthorized colony.On the website ofthe Department of Urban Development, GNCTD a list of unauthorized colonies awaiting regularization has been put up. Dwarka Vihar,Kakrola Road,Najafgarh is one ofthose colonies which figures at SL.No.77.There can,therefore, be no doubt that the subject lands are situated in an unauthorized colony. This Court has in a series oforders, consistently held that where the property in question is part ofan unauthorized colony, no relief under Section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act can be granted.

10. The legal position has been summarized by the Court in Moot Chand v. Union ofIndia(2019)173DRJ595(DB)where it was held in paragraphs 48, 49 and 50 as under: "48. The third aspect ofthe case is that the Petitioner admits that the land in question is part of an unauthorized colony. The very basis for seeking regularization ofan unauthorized colony is that it is located on land which belongs either to the public or to some other private parties. The Petitioners would therefore not have the locus standi to seek a declaration in terms ofSection 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act in such cases since the very fact that they have sought W.P.(C)8073/2018andconnected matters Page8of10 regularization on the basis that they are in unauthorized colony would be an admission that they do not otherwise have any valid right,title or interest in the land in question.

49. This Court has by order dated 19th December 2018 in WP(C) No.190/2016(Harbhagwan Batra v. Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi) and order dated 8th January 2019 in WP(C)No.10201/2015 {Gurmeet Singh Grewal v. Union ofIndia) negatived similar pleas by the Petitioners who were trying to seek similar declaration oflapsing even while admitting that they were pursuing regularisatioh ofan unauthorised colony.

50. In a decision dated 10th January 2019 in W.P.(C)3623 of 2018{Akhil Sibal v. Govt. ofNCTofDelhi)this Court observed in this context as under:

11. The above decision has been followed and the legal position has been reiterated by this Court in an order dated 25'*^ January, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.3438/2015 {Krishna Devi v. Union ofIndia). As clarified in those orders, W.P.(C)8073/2018andconnected matters Page9of10 the dismissal ofthe present petition will not come in the way ofthe Petitioners pursuing the claim for regularisation ofthe unauthorised colony in question.

12. It must be noted that in respect of lands in the same area in which the subject land is located, and covered by the same Award,this Court has - by order dated 20'^ March 2019 in W.P.(C)11543/2018(Parvesh Pandit v. Union "■ of India) and order dated 7'^ May 2019 in W.P.(C) 7431/2018 {Azad Kaur Malik V. Union of India) - dismissed the writ petitions of other Petitioners similarly situated as the present ones and has declined to grant the identical relief prayed for under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act.