Full Text
W.P.(C)7044/2016
WASEELA BEGUM Petitioner
Through: Mr. Haneef Mohammed, Mr. Anil Vyas, and Mr. Neeraj Bhushan, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh,Advocates for DDA.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain,,Standing Counsel for LAC/L&B along with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,Advocate.
Mr. Chiranjeev Kumar, Advocate for RespondentNo. 1.
Through:
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh,Advocates for DDA.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for LAC/L&B along with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,Advocate.
Mr. Chiranjeev Kumar, Advocate for RespondentNo. 1.
06.08.2019
Page 1 of7 2019:DHC:7490-DB
ORDER
1. These are two petitions arising out a similar set offacts and are therefore being disposed of by this common order. They were nevertheless heard separately.
2. For the sake ofconvenience, the facts in W.P.(C)7044/2016 are being referred to first. The prayers in the said petition read as under: "(a)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature ofcertiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby quashing and setting aside the award being award no. 1027A dated 09-11-1968 which was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect ofthe. petitioner's land measuring 5 Bighas 9 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 676/188 (0-18) and Khasra No. 677/188 (4-11) in Village HauzRani,Delhi, (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents not to, in any manner whatsoever, interfere in the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the land structure standing thereon being measuring 5 Bighas9Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.676/188 (0-18) and Khasra no.677/188(4-ll) in Village Hauz Rani, Delhi; which is in possession and occupation ofthe petitioner; and
(c) Issue writ of prohibition or any other writ or direction thereby prohibiting the respondents from taking over the possession of the said land from the petitioner under the impugned award since the said award has already lapsed;and (d)call for the entire record ofthe proceedings from the office of the Concerned Respondent and after examination of the records of the entire proceedings with respect to the said acquisition ofland and quash the entire acquisition proceedings qua the said land" W.P.(C)7044/2016& 7065/2016 Page2of[7]
3. When the petitions were taken up for hearing today learned counsel for the Petitioner informed the Court that subsequent to the previous date of hearing, the Petitioner had expired. Although counsel for the Petitioner sought leave to bring the legal representatives (LRs) of the Petitioner on record,the Court is ofthe view that since the prayers in the petitions are in any event untenable for the reasons explained hereafter, the substitution of the Petitioner by her LRs atthis stage is notrequired.
4. The background facts are that the land in question i.e. 5 Bighas 9Biswas in Khasra No.676/188 (0-18) and 677/188 (4-11) situated iri Village Hauz Rani, Delhi (hereafter, 'subject land') was notified under Section 3 ofthe Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 on 13^*^ September, 1948. The Land Acquisition Collector ('LAC') made an offer being Offer Number 1027-A in respect ofthe subjectland on 9"^ November,
1962.
5. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the Petitioner'sgrandfather Shri Jumman Khan co-owned the subject land and that after his death on 2L^April,1970 his son Fayyaz Mohamed Khan built24jhuggis on the subjectland alongside fencing it by laying wires. A copy ofthe Khatauni for the year 1964-65 has been annexed with the petition. It is further stated that possession of the subject land was with the grandfather-in-law of the Petitioner and after his death, the Petitioner's husband. It is averred that since her husband's death, the Petitioner and her family have been in possession ofthe subject land. The Petitioner claims interest in the subject land as the legal heir ofShri Jumman Khan. W.P.(C)7044/2016& 7065/2016 Page3of[7]
6. It is averred in the petition that the possession ofthe subject land has not been taken till date and that physical possession continues to be with the Petitioner. It is further averred that compensation has not been paid to the Petitioner. 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 on the ground that neither has possession been taken nor compensation paid.
7. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalfofthe LAC and the DDA.In the counter affidavit ofthe LAC,it is averred thatthe reliefunder Section 24 (2)ofthe 2013 Act cannot be claimed in respect ofland acquired under the Resettlement ofDisplaced Persons(Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 and that, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Further, all the averments in the petition have been denied.
8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalfofthe DDA,it,is averred that the petition is barred by delay and laches.Itisfurther averred that Section 24(2) of 2013 Act would not be applicable in cases of acquisition under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948. It is further averred that by way ofa notification dated 22"''February, 1979 the subject land was placed at the disposal of the DDA. It is also stated that actual physical possession ofthe subject land was handed over to the DDA by the Central Government through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Internal Security, Rehabilitation Division (Settlement) on W.P. (C)7044/2016& 7065/2016 pag^4of[7] th 13 August, 1987. It is further averred that presently, a residential colony, viz.Saket Colony and the HauzRani Road are situated on the subjectland.
9. It is also averred thatfor the subject land,the Petitioner has filed two writ petitions: the present writ petition and W.P.(C) 7065/2016. As regards compensation, it is averred that status of disbursal of compensation to individual owners can only be confirmed by the "appropriate department of the Government".
10. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner to the counter affidavit ofthe DDA, where the averments in the writ petition have been reiterated. It is further averred that there is no limitation period for the application of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act and that, therefore, such a submission is untenable. It is also averred that Section 24 (2) is a "substantive provision of general law that would apply to all compulsory acquisitions". Reference has also been made to the civil suit and its dismissal by order dated 7^"^ March, 2017 for non-prosecution. It is contended that since the suit was not considered on merits and the Ld. Civil Judge could not have granted the reliefofdeemed lapsing under Section 24 (2)ofthe 2013 Act,the Petitioner has filed the present petition.
11. As far as the companion petition W.P.(C)7065/2016 is concerned,the prayers are nearly identical, with only difference being the extent of the lands in Village Hauz Rani. Both the LAC and the DDA have filed counter affidavits with averments nearly identical to their averments in the counter affidavits filed in W.P.(C)7044/2016.To the counter affidavit ofthe DDA, W.P. (C)7044/2016& 7065/2016 Page5of[7] the Petitioner has filed a rejoinder similar to that filed in W.P. (C) 7044/2016.
12. The assertion ofthe Petitioner that she continues to remain in possession ofthe lands in question and had not been paid compensation for the same, gives rise to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined in the present petition.
13. Secondly, it is evident that the petitions are barred by delay and laches. They seek relief in respect of acquisition proceedings that stood initiated way back in 1948 and where possession ofthe land was handed over to the DDAinl979.
14. Another, and a central aspect of the matter, is that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the subject land were initiated and completed under the Resettlement ofDisplaced Persons(Land Acquisition)Act, 1948. Section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act would not apply to such acquisition. Section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Actreads as under; "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(1 of 1894), where an award urider the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall.initiate the proceedings ofsuch land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions ofthis Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect ofa majority ofland holdings has not been deposited W.P.(C)7044/2016& 7065/2016 Page6of[7] in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act,shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions ofthis Act."
15. A bare perusal ofthe aforesaid provision makes it clear that the reliefof declaration of deemed lapsing is contemplated only where the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(LAA)and culminated in an Award under Section 11 ofthe LAA. Since that is not the case in the present petitions,the Petitioner cannot be granted the reliefofa declaration ofdeemed lapsing under Section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act.
16. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order dated 12'*^ August,2016 as confirmed on 14'^ November,2017, in both petitions,stand hereby vacated. The dismissal ofthese petitions will not come in the way ofthe LRs ofthe Petitioner availing other remedies that may be available to them in accordance with law.
S.MURALIDHAR,J. TALWANtSIPTCH,J. AUGUST 6,2019 abc