Full Text
W.P.(C)7600/2015
M/S BEST BUILD CREATIONS PVT.LTD.&ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.Abhik Kumar& Mr.Suryadeep Singh,Advocates
Through: Mr.Dhanesh Relan,Standing counsel with Ms.Komal Sorout, Advocates for Respondent/DDA
Mr.Yeeshu Jain with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for Respondent
LAC/L&B ^ W.P.(C)9312/2015 M/S NIKISH COMPUTERSYSTEMSPVT.LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhik Kumar&Mr.Suryadeep
Through: Mr.DhaneshRelan,Standing counsel with Ms.Komal Sorout, Advocates
LAC/L&B
2019:DHC:7547-DB ©
M/S BESTBUILD CREATIONSPVT.LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhik Kumar& Mr.Suryadeep
Through: Mr.Dhanesh Relan,Standing counsel with Ms.Kpmal Sorout, Advocates
LAC/L &B
30.04.2019 1.Thisthree petitions arise outofthecommonsetoffactsandseekidentical remedies. They are accordingly being disposed ofby this common order.
Neverthelessthey were heard separately.
2.In each ofthese petitionsthere are two prayers.Prayer(a)is for setting aside the notification dated it June, 1996 under Section 4 ofthe Land
Acquisition Act,1894('LAA')and a declaration dated 10'"January,1997 under Section6 ofthe LAA and an Award No.2/1998-1999to the extent thattheyseektoacquirethePetitioner'slandlocatedintherevenueestateof
Village Malikpur Kohl,Rangpuri,Tehsil Kapshehra,DistrictSouth Delhi, NCT ofDelhi.Prayer(b)is for a declaration that the acquisition ofthe
Petitioner's land stands lapsed under Section 24(2)ofthe Right to Fair
Page 2of6
Compensation and Transparency in Land Ar^ • • •
ResettlementAct,2013('2013Act') R^^iabilitation and
3oIneachofthesepetition,aninterin,orderwaspassedon5'^October
2015dtrectmgpartiestomaintainstatus-quo withregard toth r airr"o.theiandinquestion.L.aid ::: ythis Courtsubsequentlybyordersdated 26th October2017 q®
Januaiy,2018and 16"Januaiy2018.
4.Theavermentsineachofthepetitionsisalsoidentical.Itisstatedthatthe notification issued on 27"June, 1996 under Section 4 ofthe LAA was challengedin WI>(C)No.1953/1997titled Vasan,KunjEnclareHousln, Welfare Society v. Union ofIndia..The said notification under Section 4 read with Section 17LAA wasstruckdown bythisCourtbyanorderdated
28^''April,2006inthesaid writpetition.
5.SLP(C)No.4062/2012prefen-ed againstthesaid order wasdismissed by the Supreme Court on April, 2012. A public notice dated 2ri^
November,2012followed by a corrigendum dated July,2013 wasissued by the Land Acquisition Collector(LAC)inviting objections under Section
5-A LAA.During the pendency ofthe said proceedings,the 2013 Actcame into force on January,2014.
6.In eachofthe petitions,itisstated thatthe Respondentshaveneitherpaid compensation nor taken physical possession of the Petitioner's land and accordinglythePetitioners areseekingthereliefs asprayed for.
ORDER
7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Delhi Development Authorit}'(DDA)it is pointed outthat the land was acquired for the planned development ofDelhi. Although the possession ofthe land was not handed over to the DDA,it had deposited the compensation ofRs. 13.47 crores with theLand and Building Departmentbycheque dated lO'^ January,1996.
8. It is pointed out that each ofthe Petitioners was neither a party to the O earlier proceedingsinthis Courtorbeforethe Supreme Courtandtherefore, was not entitled to the reliefs claimed for.
9. A separate counter affidvaithas been filed by.the LAC pointing outthat none ofthe Petitionersisthe recorded owner in respectofthe subjectland. Each ofthe Petitioners was claiming reliefs on the basis ofan assignment deed which wasnota valid documentofconferring right,title or interestin respectofthesaidlandinquestion.There wereinterim orderpassedinthe various writ petitions which challenged the earlier land acquisition O proceedings and even the notices issued subsequently on 21''November. 2012invitingobjectionsunderSection5-A oftheLAA,as aresultofwhich thelandacquisitionproceedingscouldnotbecompleted. Relianceisplaced onthe decisionsinAbhey Ram v. Union ofIndia(1997)5SCC421 and OmPmkash v. Union ofIndia(2010)4SCC17to urgethatifon account ofthecontinuousinterim orderspassed bytheCourtstheRespondentswere precludedfromcompletingthelandacquisitionproceedings,itwasnotopen tothePetitionerstoseekadeclarationofdeemedlapsingoflandacqu.stion proceedingsunderSection24(2)ofthe2013Act. PciQB 4 of[6] W.P.(C)7600/2015,9312/2015&9342/2015 r:rr: _,• n ^ who were seeking as prayer (a) above in relation to the lands located in Village MalikpurKohl,Rangpurihavebeenrejected bythisCourt. ^ 11. As regards prayer (b), it requires to be noticed that if indeed the Pent,oner's land is covered by the fresh notification issued inviting objectionsunderSection5-A.thenthereisnoAwardyetinrespectofwhich anyreliefintermsofSection24(2)ofthe2013 Actcan begranted. Inthat caseprayer(b)wouldnotsurvive.Ontheotherhand,ifthelandsin question are notcovered by the notice under Section 5-A ofthe LAA,the Petitioners cannotin any eventnotseekreliefunderprayer(b)becausethey havefailed to demonstrate any valid right, title or interest in respect ofthe lands in question. Further,they have failed to approach the Court for reliefwithin a reasonable time of the earlier Award No. 2/1998-1999. None of these Petitioners has filed rejoinders to'contradict the assertions in the counter affidavits ofthe LAC or the DDA. o
12. For all of the aforementioned reasons, none of the prayers in these petitions can be granted. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. The interim orders passed by this Court on 5"' October, 2015 which stood confirmed on 26"^ October,2017,9"" January 2018 and 16'\January fF.R(C)7600/2015,9312/2015&9342/2015 Page5of[6] c 2018 are hereby vacated.
S. MURAL AR
LS.MEHTA,J. W.P.(C)7600/2015,9312/2015&9342/2015 Page[6] p)6