Devender Dabas v. Lt. Governor of Delhi

2005. The public purpose of the acquisition was for the Rohini Residential Scheme. The only difference in the petitions is as regards the khasraNos.and the extent ofland.

3. For convenience,the facts ofW.P.(C)No.3967/2015 titled Devender Dabas& Ors. v. Lt. Governor ofDelhi&Ors. are discussed.The prayers in the presentpetition read as under: "a)Issue a Writ ofCertiorari and/or a 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. F11(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 ofVillage Barwala quash and set aside the same; W.P.(C)3967/2015& W.P.(C)4624/2015 Page2of[9] b)Issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and 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 the nature of Certiorari calling for the records ofthe case and after examining the legality and validity of the Award NO. 12/2005-06 dated 15.7.2005/5.8.2005(Annexure-C to the Writ Petition)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 calling for the records of the case and after examining the legality and validity ofthe same direct the Respondents not to interfere/dispossess the Petitioners from their lands forming part ofKhasra Numbers as indicated in Annexure-D; e) Issue a Declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respectto the land ofthe Petitioner as indicated in Schedule-A be deemed to have lapsed; f)Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

4. The case ofthe Petitioners is that they were paid "meager amount of compensation at the rate ofRs. 15,70,000/- per acre,i.e., 325 per sq. yd. "However,it is claimed thatthey still remain in possession ofthe land in question and therefore are entitled to the reliefunder Section 24(2)ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013('2013 Act').

5. It is admitted that the Petitioners had challenged same land acquisition proceedings in respect oflands in the Revenue Estate ofVillage Barwala, in an earlier round oflitigation by way ofa batch ofwrit petitions where W.P.(C)3967/2015& W.P.(C)4624/2015 Page3of[9] o the lead matter was W,P.(C)2501/2013{Naresh Kumar& Ors. v. Union ofIndia).By a detailedjudgmentdated l?^'^ April2013,aDivisionBench (DB)ofthis Courtdismissed the writ petition inter alia holding as under; "We, at the inception, put to learned senior counsel for the petitioners as to.why and how can we permit a settled position to be unsettled after a decade. This is so as the petitioners chose to remain silent when the acquisition proceedings were initiated, accepted the same, took compensation and sought references for enhancement of compensation. The aforesaid facts have to be examined in the conspectus ofthe purpose for which the land was acquired which was planned development of Rohini Residential Scheme. In Delhi there has been large scale acquisition by the DDA which was originally the only authority which was engaged in development of land and meeting the housing needs of the people. No doubt in this process while large tracts of land were acquired, some land remains undeveloped and the DDA could not protect its land pool with the result encroachment took place. These encroachments have been on such a massive scale with practically no prevention that a large part ofhabitants ofDelhi reside in these colonies. The Government has come lip now with schemes ofregularization ofthese colonies. Rohini Residential Scheme like other schemes is in the nature ofa mini township. Such a mini township will contain all the essential features, i.e. residential areas, commercial areas, institutional areas. Thus, while there will be development of residential plots, there would also be development of commercial areas to take care ofthe needs ofresidents. These may be shopping arcades or there may be hotel sites, etc. Similarly there would be institutional requirements like for. purpose ofschools,hospitals,community facilities,etc.Ifland is allotted for all these purposes it cannot be said that the purpose of acquisition has disappeared or there is mala fide exercise ofthe power of acquisition. The DDA would spend large amount ofmonies on development ofthe area and,thus, to have a transparency auction is often the method,adopted for allotment, at least, with commercial areas while in case of residential areas there may be auction of plots or particular schemes under which plots and flats are allotted. It may be W.P.(C)3967/2015& W.P.(C)4624/2015 Page4of[9] possible even to allot land to certain societies for their needs. Similarly hotel sites and commercial buildings are often auctioned. We are,thus,ofthe view thatthe nature ofallegations made in this writ petition cannot be said ofsiich a nature as to suggest that there is a mala fide exercise ofpower or improper use of the land,which has been acquired. We are ofthe view thatthe petitioners cannot after such a long period seek to rake up the issue of acquisition merely on the basis ofsome recent pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court even when they accepted the compensation qua acquisition ofthe land by neither challenging the acquisition proceedings nor the award but on the other hand were only interested in enhancement of compensation for which they have sought a reference. They have also recovered the compensation and for them now to say thatthey are willing to return that compensation after number ofyears and should be permitted to assail the acquisition proceedings would not, in our view,be the appropriate direction to be passed. In view ofthese facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the petition seeking to challenge the acquisition proceedings both on grounds of delay and laches as also on account ofthe acquiescence and conduct ofthe petitioners qua the acquisition proceedings. Dismissed."

6. On 3'^'^ February 2015 the Supreme Court ofIndia passed the following orders in SLP(C)No. 17121/2013 (Naresh Kumar v. Union ofIndia) and a batch ofspecial leave petitions(SLPs), of which the SLP filed by the Petitioners herein formed part, all ofwhich were directed against the above order dated 17^^ April 2013 ofthe DB ofthis Court in W.P.(C) 2501/2013 and batch. The order reads as under: "SLP rCI Nos. 17121. 33188 of 2013 & SLP (C) 17482, 13358 of2014 W.P.(C)3967/2015& W.P.(C)4624/2015 Page5of[9] Shri T. N. Singh and Dr. Surat Singh, learned counsels for the Petitioners in respective matters on instructions, seek permission ofthis Courtto withdraw these petitions. Permission soughtis granted. The special leave petitions are disposed ofas withdrawn. ContemptPetition(S)No.319 of2013 in SLP 17121 of2013 In view of the withdrawal of the special leave petition, nothing survives for consideration and decision in this contempt petition. The contempt petition is dismissed in terms ofthe signed order."

7. Thus no liberty was granted to the Petitioners in the above matters to th challenge the land acquisition proceedings afresh. The order dated 17 April 2013 passed by the DB of this Court in Naresh Kumar {supra) rejecting the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings qua the lands in village Barwalaforthe Rohini Residential Scheme attained finality.

8. The DDA in its counter affidavit submitted that the petition is severely barred by delay and laches. It is also submitted that the physical possession ofthe land falling in Khasra Nos.5/73(4-16),6/10(4-16),11(4- 16),21 (4-02),22(4-12),7// 14(4-16), 15(4-16),25/1(3-06),26(0-12), 10/75(4-16), 6(4-16), 11/71(5-00), 4(4-16), 7(3-19), 16 (4-12), 17/1(2-16), 14/720(4-16),21(4-04), 15/716/2(1-15),25/2(1-18),16/722/1(2-16),22/2(1- 08), 21/77(4-16), 14(4-16), 15(4-16), 16(4-11), 22/720(4-16), 21(4-16), 23/74/1 (3-04), 4/2(1-12), 5/1(4-06)5/2(0-07), 24/71/1(0-04) 1/2(4-10), 25/710(4-16), 33/15(4-16), 34/7 10/2(1-00), 11(4-16), 17(4-1 6),20(4-16), 24(4-16),39/726(0-04),40/73(4-05),4(4- 16),7(4-16),49/72/2(2-00),9(4- 16), 12( 4-16), 52/77(4-16), 53/722/2(3-10), 23min(2-14) 25 (4-16), 54/71(4-16),9/(4-12),10(4-16),12/1(1-15),59//5(4-16),6(4-16),7min (1-11), 15(3-17),16/l (1-14),60/71(3-17), 10/1(1-11), 12(4-16), 13(4-16) W.P.(C)3967/2015& W.P.(C)4624/2015 Page6of[9] 18/1(1-06), 19(4-16), 61/724(4-16), 25/l(l-08),25/2( 0-12), 25/3( 2-16), 62/711/2(1-00) 18/1(1-09), 19 (4-16), 20( 4-16), 21(4-16), 22(4-16), 63/75(4-16),6(4- 16),64/71(4-16),2(4-16),3min (4-06-10),4min (3-08), 5(4-16), 10(4- 16),65/71/1(0-16), 67/73(4-16),4(4-16),7/l(2-02), 8(4-16), 68/716/2(4- 00) 24(4-05), 25(4-16), 69/71 (4-08), 2(4-08), 10(4-16), 70- 7/4(4-08),5(4- 08),6(4-16),7(4-16), 14(1-16), 15(2-16),74/74(4-05),5(4- 16), 16/2(1-03) 25/2(2-03), 75/718(3-06), 19(4-16), 20(4-16), 21(4-16), 22(4-15), 76/71 min 2-04), 2(1-01)26(0-04) was taken by the LAC and handed over to the DDA on 6"" October 2005 except for land falling in Khasra No. 21/726(0-05), 76/71 min (0-02) being built up.. It is further submitted that the land was further transferred to the Engineering Department on 20^*^ December 2005. On the aspect ofcompensation it is submitted that the DDA paid a sum ofRs.3,02,35,05,048/- against Award No. 12/05-06/DC/NW.

9. Inasmuch as the lands were acquired for the Rohini Residential Scheme,on the question ofactual physical possession, a reference needs th to be made to the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 10 March 2015,28^*^ January 2016 and 18^*^ October 2016 in SLP(C)Nos. 16385- 88/2012 {Rahul Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority) and in the interlocutory applications ('I.As') in the said SLPs. Although, in the order dated 10^^ March 2015, the Supreme Court referred to the acquisition ofland for the Rohini Residential Scheme in Sectors 34,35, 36 and 37,in the subsequent order dated 18^*^ October 2016,it was made clear that the effect of the said order of the Supreme Court was to be applied to all the lands acquired forthe Rohini Residential Scheme.In the order dated 18^^ October 2016 while disposing of various I.As in the aforementioned SLPs,the Supreme Court directed as under: W.P.(C)3967/2015&W.P.(C)4624/2015 Page 7of[9] "Heard Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants and perused the interlocutory applications. In view ofthe order dated 10.03.2015,passed by this Court in SLP(C)Nos. 16385-16388 of 2012, and a subsequent order dated 28.01.2016, passed in the same special leave petitions, the interim order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 04.3.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 1915/2015 (Annexure A-4 in the instant interlocutory applications),is liable to be vacated, and is accordingly vacated. We grant liberty to the Delhi Development Authority to produce a copy of this order in all matters, pertaining to land acquisition relating to the Rohini Residential Scheme, pending before the Hijgh Court,for vacation ofsimilar interim directions. It is made clear that in case the applicants have re-entered possession or otherwise, they shall vacate the said land and hand over its possession forthwith to the Delhi Development Authority, failing which it shall be assumed to be in possession of the Delhi Development Authority, after the expiry often daysfrom the passing ofthe instant order. With the aforesaid directions, these interlocutory applications stand disposed of."(emphasis supplied)

10. These directions were repeated in the remaining I.As which were disposed ofon the same date i.e. 18'^ October 2016. In effect therefore, the position is that if anyone still in possession oflands acquired for the Rohini Residential Scheme had not surrendered possession thereofto the DDA within ten days of the order dated 18^^ October 2016, then the possession thereof was deemed to be with the DDA.It would no longer be open to such persons to contend that actual physical possession ofthe lands in question remains with them.

11. This legal position has been clarified by this Court in its order dated W.P.(C)3967/2015& W.P.(C)4624/2015 Page8of[9] 22"^^ November 2018 in W.P.(C)51118/2016 {Jawahar Singh v. Lt. GovemorJjand reiterated in the order dated 25^*^ January 2019in W.P.(C) 3438/2015{KrishnaDevi v. Union ofIndia).

12. For the aforementioned reasons, none ofthe reliefs sought for in the each ofthe present petitions can be granted.The petitions are accordingly dismissed.The interim orders ifany stand vacated. IDHAJ^J. S. M I.S. MEHTA,J MARCH 25,2019 nd