Full Text
W.P.(C)5418/2017&CM Appl.No.10986/2019
SHIV KUMAR THROUGH SMT.MUNNIDEVI Petitioner
Through Mr.Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Advocate
Through Mr.Sanjay KumarPathak,Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.M.S.Akhtar for
Respondents No.1-5 Mr.Pawap Mathur,Standing Counsel for DDA
08.03.2019
ORDER
1. With the consentofthe parties,the writpetition is heard finally.
2. The prayers inthe presentpetition read as under: "In view ofthe above,it is most respectfully prayed that this Hbn'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,order or direction tp:a)set aside the impugned award i.e. 10/2008- 2009(SW)passead by the Office of the ADM/LAC(SW)Room No. 12, Old Terminal Tax Building,kapashera.New Delhi-110037. b) Further directions to the Respondents to initiate a fi-esh Land Acquisition proceedings as perthe newenactment. W.P. (C)5418/2017 PageI of[6] 2019:DHC:7866-DB 'h.. ^ c) Further directions to grant compensation as per the new law by consideration ofthe market value,ofthe land by setting-aside the prior award which was passed underthe old Act. d)pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest ofjustice." -t
3. The background facts are that land in question i.e. Plot No.21 in Khasra No. 140/8(150 Sq. yards)located in the revenue estate of Village Dichaori Kalan was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act(LAA), 1894on 7''^ April,2006.
4. This was followed by declaration under Section 6 ofLAA on 4^^ April, 2007 that the land was required for the public purpose of"construction of 100 metres in under planned development ofDelhi". The Land Acquisition Collector(LAC)passed the impugned Award No.10/2008-2009/SW on 30^®^ December,2008.
5. The Petitioner is represented by Smt. Munni Devi,his General Power of Atomey(trPA).It is claimed that she is"the owner ofthe property/plot NO. 21 area measuring 150 sq.yards ofKhasra No. 140/8 in the area of Village Dichaon Kalan,Delhi"in the abadi now known as Laxmi Nagar,Najafgarh, New Delhi". The Petitioner claims to have purchased the property from one Shri Tej Ram Gupta in the year 2011 i.e. nearly two years after the land acquisition Award was passed.
6. Enclosed as Annexure P-4 collectively to the petition are 'the sale documents'. A close scrutiny ofthe documents shows that the property in W.P. (C)5418/2017 Page2of[6] question purportedly was purchased through a GPA on 24 May, 2011. Apart from this not being a valid instrument for transfer oftitle, it appears that the Petitioner, having full knowledge of the status of the land in question, and without taking permission from the competent authority, in terms ofthe Delhi Land(Restriction ofTransfer)Act, 1972 entered into the said transaction The original recorded owner, who obviously is not the Petitioner,has notchallenged the land acquisition proceedings. 'U ■
7. In Para[4] ofthe writ petition,itis stated thatin April,2012the officials of the Land and Building(L&B)Department informed her that the land had been acquired and compensation forthe same was being paid to the recorded owners.According to the Petitioner she submitted an application to the LAC regarding the payment of compensation. The Petitioner claims that after passing of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013('2013 Act'),she is. entitled to the reliefunder Section 24(2)thereofsince no compensation has I been paid to her and the physical possession ofthe land in question remains with her. Further,the date ofpassing ofthe Award is more than five years priorto January,2014 i.e.the date ofthe 2013 Actcoming into force.
8. The DDA in their counter affidavit has stated that physical possession of Khasra No. 140/8(4-06) was taken over and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority(DDA)on 10^*^ February,2012.Thereafterthe lands falling in Khasra No. 140/8 (4-06) was transferred for the purpose of the 100m road to AE/ MPR-1 on 31.08.2012. It is further submitted that a sum ofRs. 19,83,91,442/- (Rupees Nineteen Crores Eighty Three Lakhs Ninety W.P. (C)5418/2017 Page3of[6] XO One Thousand Four Hundred Forty Two Only)has been released to the Land and Building Department vide cheque beting No. 445291 dated 28.01.2010 on accountofcompensation.
9. No rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner to the counter affidavitofthe DDA. ^ 10.In the course pfthe hearing,it transpired that Laxmi Nagar in Village Dichaon Kalan is one of the unauthorized colonies in respect of which a provisional regularization certificate has been issued. On the website ofthe Department of Urban Development of the GNCTD, the complete list of unauthorized colonies in respect of which tentative application forms and tentative layout plans had been submitted and which are awaiting regularization has been put up. Laxmi Nagar is one ofthose unauthorized colonies, which figures at S.No.912. Clearly, therefore, the property in A question forms part.ofthe unauthorized colony..'.■y
11. This Court has in a series of orders, consistently held that where the property in question is part of an unauthorized colony, no relief under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act can be granted. The legal position has been tb summarized by the Court in a decision dated 17 January, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.4528/2015 {Moot Chand v. Union of India) where it was held in paragraphs 48, 49 and 50 as under:
W.P.(C) 5418/2017 Page 4 of[6] ■A W to some other private parties. The Petitioners would therefore not have the locus standi to seek a declaration in terms of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act in such cases since the very fact that they have sought regularisation on the 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 19th December 2018 in WP(C) No.190/2016 (Harbhagwan Batra v. Govt ofNCT of Delhi) and order dated 8th January 2019 in WP(C) No.10201/2015 (Gurmeet Singh Grewal v. Union of India) negatived similar pleas by the Petitioners who were trying to seek similar declaration of kpsing even while admitting that they were pursuingregularisation of anunauthorised colony.
50. In a decision dated 10th January 2019 in W.P. (C) 3623 of 2018 (AkhilSibal v. Govt ofNCTofDelhi) this Court observed in this context as under:
colonies are by way of encroachment onpublic land, some of it may be on private land, but in any event, the constructions themselves are unauthorized. The major premise on which suchregularization is sought is that these constructions have been erected on public or private land which does not belong to the persons who are under occupation of those structures. That very basis gets contradicted as some of them try to seek a declaration about lapsing of the land acquisitionproceedings by invoking Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. This is a contradiction in terms and is legally untenable."
12. The above decision has been followed and the legal position has been reiterated by this Court in an order dated 25^^ January, 2019 in W.P.(C) W.P.(C) 5418/2017 Page 5 of[6] 2019:DHC:7866-DB.Jr v No.3438/2015 {Krishna Devi v. Union ofIndia). As clarified in those orders,the dismissal ofthe present petition will not come in the way ofthe Petitioner pursuing the claim for regularisation ofthe unauthorised colony in question.
13. Consequently, the reliefs prayed for in the petition cannot be granted. T ' The writ petition is dismissed.The interim order dated 21®^ May 2018 which stood confirmed on 23'^'^ August,2018 is hereby vacated. The applications are also disposed of. The next dates ofhearing before the Registrar on March2019and beforethe Courton 27^*^ September2019are cancelled.
S. MURALEDHAR,J
SANJEEV NARULA,J. MARCH 08,2019 mw