Full Text
W.P.(C)10448/2015& CM APPL.26223/2015
SURJEET SINGH .... Petitioner
Through:Mr.Aakash Sehrawat for Mr.Vishal Maan,Advocate
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh for DDA.
Mr.Siddharth Panda for LAC.
SANTOSH KUMAR .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Advocate
Through:Mr.Siddharth Pandafor LAC.
MAHINDER SINGFITYAGI& ORS. .... Petitioner Thi'ough: M^.Jyoti Kataria,Advocate
IV.P.(C)10448/2015andconnected matters Page1 of8
2019:DHC:7908-DB
Through:Mr.Arun Birbal with Mr. Sanjay Singh for DDA.
Mr.Siddharth Panda for LAC.
ARTIKAPAHI ....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Akash Sehrawatfor Mr.Vishal Maan,Advocate.
Through:None
14.08.2019
ORDER
1. These are three petitions arising out a similar set of facts and are, therefore,being disposed ofby this common order.Nevertheless,they were heard separately.
2. For the sake ofconvenience,the facts in W.P.(C)10448/2015 {Surjeet Singh V. Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi) will set out first. The prayer in the said petition reads as under: W.P.(C)10448/2015andconnectedmatters page2of[8] & "i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions declaring the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of petitioner i.e. 4 bighas and 16 biswas comprised in khasra no.314,Village Sayoorpur, New Delhi to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2)of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act,2013."
3. The background facts are thatthe land in question i.e.4Bighas \6Biswas in Khasra No. 314 in Village Sayoorpur, New Delhi (hereafter, 'subject land') was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA')on 25 November,1980.This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 dated 20^ May, 1985. The Land Acquisition Collector('LAC') passed an award being Award No.10-87/88 on 14^^ May,1987.
4. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the Petitioner's predecessor-in-interest was the recorded owner of the subject land. In an attempt to demonstrate the ownership of the Petitioner's predecessor-ininterest over the subject land, a copy of the Khasra Girdawari has been annexed with the petition.It is averred in the petition thatthe actual physical possession ofthe subjectland has remained with the Petitioner.
5. In ground'(D)'ofthe petition reference has been made to thejudgmentof the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki(2014) 3 SCC 183 to aver that the Petitioner's case is squarely covered by the said judgment of the Supreme Court as no compensation has been paid to the Petitioner. Reference has been made to thejudgments ofthis Court in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union ofIndia(1989) W.P.(C)10448/2015andconnected matters Page3of[8] l: 39 DLT 233 and Balbir Singh v. Union ofIndia, where the impugned notifieations and Award had been quashed. 6,It is averred thatthe Petitioner had submitted an application to release the subject land from acquisition proceedings in view ofthis Court's decision in Balbir Singh v. Union ofIndia (supra). In this context, it is stated averred that the Petitioner returned the compensation amount in full along with interest at 12per cent. A copy ofthe cheque by which the aforesaid payment was made has been annexed with the petition. Thereafter,the petition refers to the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013('2013 Act') and the Petitioner's entitlement to a declaration of deemed lapsing under Section 24(2)ofthe said Act. *7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalfofthe LAC and the DDA.In the counter affidavit ofthe LAC,it is averred that possession ofthe subject land was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department on 14'*^ July,
1987. In respect of compensation, it is stated that compensation of Rs.1,01,221.34 was paid to Mr.Bansi by a cheque[cheque no..82885]dated til 13 October, 1987. It is further stated that the impugned notifications and Award were challenged by interested persons by way ofwrit petitions before this Court,in which the Court granted interim protection to the Petitioners.
8. Itis stated that in 2005 the writ petition ofthe Petitioner, among others, was dismissed and the validity ofthe acquisition proceedings upheld. It is stated that the appeal against the judgment dismissing the foregoing W.P. (C)10448/2015and connected matters Page4of[8] petitions before the Supreme Court came to be dismissed in Om Prakash v. Unidn ofIndia(2010)4SCC17.
9. In the counter affidavit ofthe'DDA,it is stated that the Petitioner had not broughton record any documentsto show that either she or her predecessorin-interest were or are the recorded owners of the subject land. It is accordingly submitted that the Petitioner has no locus to file the present petition.Itis stated that possession ofthe subjectland wastaken and handed overtotheDDA on 14*July,1987.
10. As regards compensation, it is averred that a total amount of Rs.lOO crores was disbursed to the LAC/L&B Department for paying land owners in 13 acquired villages, including the one in which the subject land is situated.No rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner to either ofthe counter affidavits.
11. As far as the companion petitions W.P.(C)4466/2016 and W.P.(C) 4167/2016 are concerned, the prayers and the averments are the nearly identical,only diverging as regards the description and extent ofthe land in the revenue estate ofVillage Sayoorpur,New Delhi.
12. As regards W.P.(C) 2977/2016, it is noted that the land forming the subject matter of the said petition is situated in Village Satbari and was acquired by an award being Award No. 14/87-88 dated 26* May, 1987. However the averments and the grounds advanced for seeking relief under Section 24(2)of2013 Act are nearly identical. W.P. (C)10448/2015andconnected matters Page5of[8] !
13. Counter affidavits have been filed by the LAC and the DDA identical to the one in W.P.(C) 10448/2015, denying the Petitioners' assertion of continual possession and failure to pay compensation Counter affidavits similar to the one in W.P.(C) 10448/2015 have been filed by the LAC and the DDA in all the companion writ petitions.
14. In W.P.(C)4466/2015, W.P.'(C)4167/2016 and W.P.(C)2977/2016 rejoinders have been filed on behalf of the Petitioners to the counter affidavit of the LAC wherein the contents of the writ petition haye been reiterated.
15. In W.P.(C)4167/2016,the DDA has also filed an additional affidavit stating that a compensation amount ofRs.3,08,188.66 was paid to M'. Atul Kapahi and Tarun Kapahi on 20^^ October, 1987 for acquisition ofthe land in question. It is further stated that as per the records, the compensationamount has not been returned.
16. The assertion ofthe Petitioners in the instance ofall three petitions that possession ofthe lands in question has not been taken,gives rise to disputed questions offact, which cannot be examined in the present petition.The fact further remains that there is no explanation in any ofthe petitions for the extraordinary delay in approaching the Courtfor relief.
17. On the aspect oflaches,inIndoreDevelopmentAuthority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 see 412 a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India observed as under: W.P. (C)10448/2015andconnected matters Page6of[8] I "130. We are ofthe view that stale or dead claims cannot be the subject-matter ofjudicial probing under section 24 ofthe Actof
2013. The provisions of section 24 do not invalidate those judgment/orders of the courts where under rights/claims have been lost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have come barred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation oflaw.Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be raised under the guise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of section 24(2) carmot be permitted. Protection by the courts in cases of such blatant misuse of the provisions of law could never have been the intention behind enacting the provisions of section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act; and, by the decision laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation {supra), and this Court never, even for a moment,intended that such cases would be received or entertained by the courts."
18. It may be noted here thatthe reference made by a Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) 4 SCC 405 regarding the correctness ofthe aforesaid decision in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendrd {supra) is only as regards the extent to which it differs from the earlier view of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. HarakchandMisrimatSolanki(2014)3SCC183regarding the tendering ofcompensation,and not on the question ofpetitions seeking declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act beiiig. barred by laches. This legal position was explained by this Court recently in its decision in MoolChand v. Union ofIndia(2019)173DRJ595(DB).
19. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim orders dated 6^*^ November,2015 and 17^^ May,2016 in W.P.(C) 10448/2015 and W.P.(C)4466/2016 respectively hereby stand vacated.The W.P.(C)10448/2015andconnected matters Page 7of[8] ( applications are disposed of. In W.P.(C)2977/2016 the interim order dated 22"'' April, 2016 as confirmed on 12"^ December, 2017 hereby stands vacated. In W.P.(C)4167/2016 the interim order dated 11"'May,2016 as confirmed on 12 December,2017 stands hereby vacated.