Manjeet Dabas & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

1. In all these petitions, the facts more or less are similar and the reliefs sought are almost identical. They are accordingly being disposed ofby this common order.Nevertheless,each ofthe petitions was heard separately.

2. In each ofthese petitions, the main reliefsought is for a declaration of deemed lapsing ofthe land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2)of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013('the 2013 Act').The declaration is sought in respect of land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Barwala in Delhi. The acquisition is by means of notification dated 2E' March 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA)followed by a declaration dated 19^^ March 2004 under Section 6 LAA and an Award No. 12/2005-06/DC(NW)dated August 2005. The fF.F.(C)1915/2015&connectedmatters Page2of[9] public purpose ofthe acquisition was for the Rohini Residential Scheme. The only difference in the petitions is as regards the khasra Nos. and the extent ofland.

3. For convenience, the facts of W.P.(C)No. 1915/2015 titled Manjeet Dabas& Ors. v.Lt. GovernorofDelhi& Ors.are discussed.The prayers in the said petition read as under: "(A)Allow the present Writ Petition in terms ofSection 24(2) ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and declaring the acquisition ofthe lands ofthe petitioner as stated in AimexureP-2to be deemed to have been lapsed; (B)Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, declaring that the Notification No. F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/2011[2] dated 21/03/2003 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Declaration u/s 6 bearing No. F.ll (ll)/2004/L&B/LA 28281 of the said Act dated 19/03/2004 and the Award bearing no. 12/2005-06 is being deemed to have lapsed; (C)writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing, the Respondents to denotify the land ofthe Petitioners as described in Armexure P-2 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Barwala,Delhi; (D)Award appropriate costs in the facts and circumstances of the case; (E)Any other or further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed/issued in favour ofthePetitioner."

4. The case of the Petitioners is that they are the owners and in physical W.P. (C)1915/2015&conneciedmatters Page3of[9] possession ofthe subjectland. Two facts are admitted bythe Petitioners.In Para 12 of the writ petition it is admitted that the predecessor of the Petitioners waspaid compensation atthe rate ofRs.15,70,000/-per acre.

5. The second admission is that that the Petitioners had challenged same land acquisition proceedings in respect oflands in the Revenue Estate of Village Barwala,in an earlier round oflitigation by way ofa batch ofwrit petitions where the lead matter was W.P.(C)2501/2013(Naresh Kumar & Ors. V. Union ofIndia), By a detailed judgment dated 17^ April 2013, a Division Bench(DB)of this Court dismissed 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 of the 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 ofthe people.No doubtin this process while large tracts ofland were acquired,some land remain 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 of habitants of Delhi reside in these colonies. The Government has come up now with schemes ofregularization of these colonies. Rohini Residential Scheme like other schemes is in the nature of a mini township. Such a mini township will contain all the W.P.(C)1915/201S&connectedmatters Page4of[9] essential features, i.e. residential areas, commercial areas, institutional areas. Thus, while there will be development of residentialplots,there would also be developmentofcommercial areas to take care of the needs of residents. These may be shopping arcades orthere may be hotel sites,etc.Similarlythere would be institutional requirements like for purpose ofschools, hospitals,communityfacilities,etc.Iflandis allottedfor allthese purposes it cannot be said that the purpose of acquisition has disappeared or there is mala fide exercise of the power of acquisition. The DDA would spend large amount of monies on developmentofthe area and,thus,to have atransparency auction is often the method, adopted for allotment, at least, with commercial areas while in case ofresidential areas there may be auction ofplots or particular schemes under which plots and flate are- allotted. It may be 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 that the nature of allegations niade in this writpetition cannotbesaid ofsuch anature asto suggestthat there is a malafide exercise ofpower orimproper use oftheland, which has been acquired. We are ofthe view that the petitioners carmot after such a long period seekto rake uptheissue ofacquisition merelyonthe 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 that they are willing to return that compensation after number of years 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 W.P.(C)1915/2015&connectedmatiers ^ 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 ordersin SLP(C)No.17121/2013{Naresh Kumar v. Union ofIndia)and a batch of special leave petitions (SLPs), of which the SLP filed by the Petitioners herein formed part, all ofwhich were directed againstthe above order dated 17^ April 2013 ofthe DB ofthis Court in W.P.(C)2501/2013 and batch.The order reads as under: "SLP rC^ Nos. 17121.33188 of2013 & SLP ICI 17482. 13358, of2014 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 specialleave petitions are disposed ofas withdrawn. ContemptPetition tSI No.319of2013 in SLP(C)17121 of2013 In view ofthe withdrawal ofthe special leave petition, nothing survives for consideration and decision in this contempt petition. The contempt petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order."

7. Thus no liberty was granted to the Petitioners in the above matters to challengetheland acquisition proceedings afresh.The order dated 17^April 2013 passed bythe DB ofthis Courtin Naresh Kumar{supra)rejecting the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings qua the lands in village Barwalafor the Rohini Residential Scheme attained finality. W.P.(C)1915/2015&connectedmatters Page6of[9] -O

8. The stand oftheDDA in its counter affidavitis thatthe possession ofthe subject land was duly taken on 6^^ October 2005 and it is admitted by the Petitioners that the compensation has been paid. A copy ofthe possession proceedingshasalso been attached along withthecounteraffidavit.

9. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit ofthe DDA,the Petitioners state that physical possession ofthe lands has still not been taken and lies with them.

10. Inasmuch asthe lands were acquired for the Rohini Residential Scheme, \ on the question ofactual physical possession,a reference needs to be made tothe orderspassed bythe Supreme Courton 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

('LAs')inthe said SLPs. Although,inthe order dated 10^*"March2015,the Supreme Courtreferred to the acquisition ofland for the Rohini Residential th 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 for the 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: "Heard Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants and perused the interlocutory applications. In view of the order dated 10.03.2015, passed by this Court in SLP (C) Nos. 16385-16388 of 2012, and a subsequent order W.P.(C)1915/2015&connec(edmaiters Page7of[9] ■f") dated 28.01.2016, passed in the same special leave petitions, the interim order passedby theHigh Court ofDelhi 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 DelhiDevelopment Authority to produce a copy of this order in all matters, pertaining to land acquisition relating to the Rohini Residential Scheme, pending before the High Court, for vacation of similar interim directions. It is made clear that in case the applicants have re-entered possession or otherwise, they shall vacate the saidland andhand over its possession forthwith to the Delhi Development Authority, failing which it shall be assumed to be in possession of the DelhiDevelopment Authority, after the expiry of ten days fromthepassing ofthe instant order. With the aforesaid directions, these interlocutory applications stand disposed of." (emphasis supplied)

11. These directions were repeated in the remaining I.As which were disposed of on the same date i.e. 18^*^ October 2016. In effect therefore, the positionis that if anyone stillinpossession of lands acquired for theRohini Residential Scheme had not surrendered possession thereof to the DDA within ten days of the order dated 18^*" October 2016, then the possession thereof was deemed to be with theDDA.It wouldno longer be open to such persons to contend that actual physical possession of the lands in question remains with them. nd

12. This legalpositionhas been clarifiedby this Court inits order dated 22 November 2018 in W.P. (C) 51118/2016 {Jawahar Singh v. Lt. Governor) W.P.(C)1915/2015&connectedmatters Page8of[9] '-'I / ii. and reiterated in the order dated 25^ January 2019 in W.P.(C)3438/2015 {KrishnaDeviv. Union ofIndia).

13. This is not even a case where the receipt ofcompensation is disputed.It is an admitted factthatthe predecessor-in-interestofthePetitioners was paid compensation bytheLAC.Therefore,neither ofthetwo essential conditions under Section24(2)ofthe 2013 Actare satisfied inthe presentcase.