Full Text
W.P.(C)7223/2016
RAM KAUR& ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rajesh Gupta,Mr.Harpreet Singh, Mr.MC Verma,Mr.Pranjal Sarawan, Advocates.
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B.
Mr. Roshan Lai Goel & Mr. Kavinder Gill for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel for DDA. W.P.(C)7230/2016
SHYAM SUNDER & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rajesh Gupta,Mr.Harpreet Singh, Mr.MC Verma,Mr.Pranjal Sarawan,
Gill.forUOI.
Ms.Shobhna Takiar for DDA
MANGE RAM & ORS Petitioners
2019:DHC:7796-DB . 1
Through: Mr.Yeeshu JainandMs.JyotiTyagi, Mr.Roshan Lai Goal and Mr.Kavinder
Gill for UOI.
Mr.Dhanesh Relan,Standing Counsel with Mr.Raieev Jha for
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS Petitioners
Through: Ms.Ruchika Rathi with Ms.Sanya Dua Gill for UOI. W.P.(C)7242/2016
SANDEEP DABAS Petitioners
UMBED SINGH Petitioners
Mr.MG Verma,Mr.Pranjal Sarawan,
Through:
Respondents Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Mr.Roshan Lai Goel and Mr.Kavinder
Mr.Tanveer Singh Khehar with Mr.Vishal Tripathi for DDA. W.P.(C)7247/2016
RAMESH CHAND DABAS & ORS Petitioners
Mr.Arjun Pantfor DDA.
12.03.2019 1.These petitions have been filed,inter alia,praying forthe same reliefand are being disposed ofby acommon order.Nevertheless,these petitions have been heard separately. For the purpose of convenience, W.P.(C).7223/2016 titled Ram Kaur& Ors. v Union ofIndia and Ors. is taken up as the lead matter and shall be discussed in some detail.
/3 2.The prayers made in W.P.(C)1223I2Q16 read as under:
(I) Issue writ of DECLARATION and/or any other appropriate
Writ, Order or Direction in the like nature declaring the impugned acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification under Section
4 of Act 1894 bearing no. F.11(19)/01/L&B/LA/20112 Dated , 21.03.2003 leading to Section 6 dt. 19.03.2014 and resulting in
Award no. 16/2005-06 for Village Mubarak Pur Dabas Delhi vis- a- vis subjectlands(detailed in Para 5)standslapsed;
Consequently issue writ of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification under Section
4 of Act 1894 bearing no. F- 11(19)/01/L&B/LA/20112 Dated
21.03.2003 leading to Section 6 dt. 19.03.2014 and resulting in
Award no. 16/2005-06 for Village Mubarak Pur Dabas Delhi vis-a-
Q) vissubjectlands(Para5);
Issue MANDAMUS and/or any other Writ,Order or direction in the like nature commanding the respondents not to interfere with and/or obstruct the petitioners in peaceful enjoyment of the subject lands
(detailed in Para5)situate in village MubarakPur Dabas,Delhi.
Pass any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case."
ORDER
3. The admitted facts are that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(LAA)issued on 2L^ March 2003 which was followed / by a declaration under Section 6 of the LAA on 19^*^ March 2004. The impugned Award No.16/2005-06 was passed on 14^*^ September2005.
4. The case of the Petitioners in para 2 of the petition is that "barring the petitioners, compensation has not been paid/tendered and/or deposited to majority of the landowners..." In other words, the Petitioners do not dispute that they have received compensation. However, they contend that the possession ofthe land in question still remains with them and therefore they are entitled to the reliefunder Section 24(2)ofthe Rightto Fair Compensation and W.P. 7223/2016& Other connected matters Page4of[5] Transi^arency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,201 ('the 2013 Act').
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalfofthe LAC(Respondent No.5),it is pointed out thatthe possession ofthe land in question was taken on the spot on th 4 April 2006 and handed over to the DDA "for the purpose ofacquisition was for Rohini Residential Scheme". ^ 6. In relation to the lands acquired for the Rohini Residential Scheme, the Supreme Court has in a series oforders in Rahul Gupta v. DDA [SLP(C)NO. 16385-16388 of2012]held that even ifon the date ofthe order ofthe Supreme • th Court,i.e. 18 October 2016,actual physical possession was not with the DDA, if such physical possession was not handed over within ten days,then the DDA would be deemed to be in possession ofthe lands in question.
7. In view ofthe above orders ofthe Supreme Court as oftoday,the lands in question are deemed to be in possession of the DDA. Therefore, the only ground on which the Petitioners are seeking the relief under Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act has ceased to exist.
8. The facts in the connected petitions are similar with the only difference being in the khasra numbers.The stand fthe Respondents is also identical.
9. Consequently,there is no merit in these writ petitions and they are dismissed as such. AR,J. S.M I.S.MEHTA,J. MARCH 12,2019 rd W.P. 7223/2016& Other connected matters Page5of[5]