Full Text
W.P.(C)2591/2015
VISHWANATH AGARWALLA& ANR Petitioners
Through; Mr.Akhil Sachar with Ms.Sunanda Tulsyan,Advocates.
&ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain,Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi,Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr.Dhanesh Relan,Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr.Komal Sarout&
^ Mr.Rajeev Jha,Advocates.
RAJKUMARI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Akhil Sachar with Ms.Sunanda Tulsyan,Advocates.
^ORS ••••• Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain,Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi,Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr.Dhanesh Relari,Standing Counsel forDDA with Mr.Konial Sarout&
Mr.Rajeev Jha,Advocates.
2019:DHC:7795-DB JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
11.04.2019
ORDER
1. These are two petitions arising out ofa similar set offacts and seeking similar reliefand are accordingly disposed ofby the presentcommon order. Nevertheless both petitions were heard separately. • O 2. For the sake, of convenience the facts in WP(C) 2591 of 2015 {Vishwanath Agarwalla v. TheLt. Governor,NationalCapital Territory of Delhi)are referredto first.The prayersinthe said petition read as under: "a)Issue a WritofCertiorari and/ora Writ,order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records ofthe case and after examining the legality and validity of the Notification dated 21.3.2003 being No. F 11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/2011[2] issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in respect ofthe land forming part ofVillage Pehladpur Bangar quash and setaside the same; b)Issue a Writ ofCertiorari and/or a Writ,order or direction in after examiningthe legality and validity ofthe declaration dated 19.3.2004 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 quash and set asidethe same; c)Issue a Writ ofCertiorari and/or a Writ,order or direction in after examining the legality and validity of the Award NO. 06/2005-06/DC(N-W) dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure-C to the WritPetition)quash and set aside the same; d)Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature ofMandamus and/or a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus W.P.(C)2591/2015 &W.P.(C)3311/2015 Page2of[9] calling for the records of the case and after examining the legality and validity ofthe same direct the Respondents not to interfere/dispossess the Petitioner from their land forming part ofKhasra Numbers as indicated in the Schedule-A; e) Issue a Declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land ofthe Petitioner as indicated in Schedule-A be deemed to have lapsed;"
3. According to the two Petitioners i.e. Vishwanath Agarwalla and Sanjay Pandey(Petitioners 1 and 2 respectively)they are the recorded owners and bhumidars in physical possession and occupation ofthe aforementioned land comprised in Revenue Estate of Village Pehladpur Bangar North-West Delhi.
4. In respect ofthe acquisition ofthe land in question a notification under Section4oftheLAA wasissued on 21®^ March 2003 forthe public purposes of the Rohini Residential Scheme. After objections were filed by the Petitioners, a declaration under Section 6 LAA was issued on 19'^ March
2004. This is followed by Award No.6/2005-06/DC(LW) dated 27'*^ June/12 July 2005 in respect ofland admeasuring 1969 bighas 18 biswas outof2026 bighas 18 biswas in village Pehladpur Bangar.
5. The case of the Petitioners is that paper possession proceedings were drawn up on 31®^ August 2005 by the Respondents but actual physical possession ofthe land in question remained with the Petitioners.
6. The Petitioners filed WP(C)22688 of2005 in this Court in which by an W.P.(C)2591/2015& W.P.(C)3311/2015 Page 3 of[9] oA O order dated 13^ November 2005 this Court directed parties to maintain status quo. Subsequently, by ajudgment dated 9^^ July 2007 the said writ petition wasdismissed.Aggrieved bythatorderthePetitionersfiled SLP(C) 16800-01 of2007. On 17^ September 2007 the Supreme Court passed an orderstayingthejudgmentdated 9^*^ July2007ofthis Court.
7. Meanwhile on ll^'' September 2007 a letter was issued by the Land and Building Department(L&B)ofthe Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi exempting the taking over of the lands falling within the boundaries of unauthorized colonies. Itis averred in para6(L)ofWP(C)2591 of2015 as under: "6(1)The Petitioner's land which falls under Registration No. ELt)89 was granted a certificate ofprovisional regularization. Copy ofthe Provisional Certificate dated 17.9.2008 granted by the Government ofNCT ofDelhi is annexed and marked hereto as
ANNEXURE-I."
8. On 1 February 2015 the Supreme Court dismissedthe SLPsbutgranted liberty to the Petitioners to seek remedies under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act'). The relevant portion of the order passed bythe Supreme Courtinthe said SLP readsthus: "However, we grant liberty to the petitioners, if they may so desire, to make appropriate application (s) as provided under Section 24 (2) of the Ri^t to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894,beforethe appropriateforum/High Court within one month from today, as applicable in the facts of respective cases before us,ifnotalready filed." W.P.(C)2591/2015.& W.P.(C)3311/2015 Page4of[9]
9. Pursuant to the leave granted by the Supreme Courtthe present petitions were filed on 10^^ March 2015. When the petition came up for hearing on th ' ^ 17 March 2015^ this Court directed parties to maintain status quo with regard to the nature, title and possession ofthe subject land. This interim order was confirmed on 1 October 2018.
10. As far as the companion WP(C) 3311 of 2015 by Raj Kumari, the prayers in the said writpetition are more or less similar and read as under: "a)Issue a Writ ofCertiorari and/or a Writ,order or direction in after examining the legality and validity of the Notification dated 21.3.2003 being No.Fll(19)/2001/L&B/LA/2011[2] issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in respect of the land forming part of Village PehladpUr Bangar quash and set asidethe same; b)Issue a Writ ofCertiorari and/or a Writ,order or direction in after examining the legality and validity ofthe declaration dated 19.3.2004 under Section 6 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 quash and set aside the same; c)Issue a Writ ofCertiorari and/or a Writ, order or direction in after examining the legality and validity of the Award NO. 06/2005-06/DC(N-W) dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure-C to the WritPetition)quash and set aside the same; d)Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus calling for the records of the case and after exarnining the legality and validity ofthe same direct the Respondents not to interfere/dispossess the Petitioner from their land forming part ofKhaSra Numbers as indicated in the Schedule-A; W.P.(C)2591/2015& W.P.(C)3311/2015 Page 5 of[9] e) Issue a Declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respectto the land ofthe Petitioner as indicated in Schedule-A be deemed to have lapsed;"
11. Schedule 'A' to the petition reveals that the land is a half share of 1 s bigha 12 biswas "inKhasraNo.50/4(0-08),50/7(0-08),50/8(0-06),50/9(0-02) and 50/14 (0-08) situated in the area of Village Pehladpur ^ Hangar,National Capital Territory ofDelhi,situated inthe area O of Village Pehladpur Hangar, National Capital Territory of Delhi."
12. The Petitioner Raj Kumari claims to be the recorded owner of the aforementioned land, his land was also sought to be acquired by the sarne Section 4 and Section 6 notifications and Award No.6/2005-06/DC(LW) dated 27^''June/12^''July2005.RajKumaristatedto havefiled WP(C)17274 of 2005 in this Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings which cameto be dismissed on 9^^July 2007. Inthis case also itis claimed thatthe Supreme Courton 11*February 2015 dismissed the SLP with liberty to the;/ Petitioner to seek relief under the 2013 Act. In this petition also it is disclosed that on 24* March 2008 a notification was issued by the DDA with regard to" regularisation of unauthorised colonies and that the Petitioners' land which falls under registration No.ELD 89 was granted certificate ofprovisionalregularisation on 17*September2008.
13. Inthis writpetition also on7*April2015 statusquo order waspassed by this Court which interim order stood confirmed on 1 October2018. W.P.(C)2591/2015&W;P.(C)3311/2015 Page6of[9]
14. When these two petitions came up for hearing on 22"^* January 2019 counsel for the Petitioners sought leave to produce copies ofthe SLPs filed by the two sets of Petitioners. Today, Mr.Akhil Sachar, learned counsel appearing Petitioners, has produced a copy of SLP(C)12534-611 of2007 which coversthe case ofVishwanath Agarwalla.He is unableto produce the SLP paper book concerning the other Petitioner Raj Kumari but states that a similar SLP was in fact filed on her behalfas well.In both SLPsthere was a disclosure made ofthe fact that the properties in question formed part of unauthorised colony.
15. Mr.Akhil Sachar states that he is conscious ofthe law explained by this Court in Mool Chand v. Union ofIndia 2019(173)DRJ 595(DB) but seeks to distinguish its application to the present case on the ground that under a'New Revised Handbook on Modified Master Plan for Delhi 2000- 21'the colony in Pehladpur Bangar has been identified as'non-conforming cluster' with industrial concentration having more than 70% plots with industrial activities'for 'redevelopment'.In other Words,it is submitted that since the entire colony is earmarked for redevelopment, this Court should notrejectthe prayers ofthe Petitioners.
16. Notwithstanding that the above unauthorized colony may have been identified for redevelopment,the fact remains that it is still an unauthorized colony in respect of which a provisional regularisation certificate has been issued.The Supreme Court,when it granted liberty to the Petitioners to seek remedies under 2013,Act,by no means had any occasion to decide whether the Petitioners would be entitled to such reliefs in view ofthe fact that the W.P.(C)2591/2015&W.P.(C)3311/2015 Page7of[9] properties in question formed part ofan unauthorized colony.The mere fact thatthe Supreme Court permitted the Petitioners to seek remedies under the 2013 Actdid not mean that it held thatthe Petitioners were in fact entitled to such relief. The Petitioners would have to still satisfy the High Court that their case is different from cases of several other Petitioners whose properties formed part of unauthorized colonies and were seeking similar reliefwhich has been rejected by this Court.
17. Mr.Akhil Sachar is unable to show how the present cases are any different from those Petitioners whose cases were rejected earlier by this Court as is evidentfrom the following passages in Mool Chand v. Union of India:
/A thatthey have soughtregularisation onthe basis that they are in unauthorised 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 19^'' December 2018 in WP(C)No.190/2016{Harbhagwan Batra v. Govt. OfNCTof Delhi)dcnd order dated 8'^^ January 2019 in WP(C) No.10201/2015{Gurmeet Singh Grewal v. Union of India)negatived similar pleasbythe Petitioners who were tryingto seeksimilar declaration oflapsing even while admitting that they were pursuing regularisation of an unauthorised colony. W.P.(C)2591/2015&W.P.(C)3311/2015 Page8of[9]
50. In a decision dated 10th January 2019 in W.P.(C)3623 of 2018 {Akhil Sibal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) this Court observed in this context as under:
18. Consequently,the Court finds no merit in either ofthese writ petitions and they are dismissed as such. The interim order passed by this Court on 17"^ March 2015 in WP(C)2591 of2015 and April2015 in WP(C)3311 of2015, both of which stood confirmed on October 2018 stand hereby vacated.
S.MURALIDHAR,J. I.S.MEHTA,J. APRIL 11,2019 tr