Brahampal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors

1. With the consent ofparties, these petitions were finally heard. Although / they were taken up separately for hearing,they are being disposed ofby this common order,asthey involve the same land acquisition proceedings.

2. These petitions pertain to acquisition ofland in Khasra Nos.278(01-15) and 282/1 (2-5) admeasuring 4 bighas in respect of the Petitioner's 1/8^'^ share lopated in the revenue estate of Village Ghonda Gujaran IChadar, Shahdara,Delhi.

3. The prayer is that a declaration should be issued that the land acquisition proceedings in respect ofthe Petitioners' respective share in the above land W.P.(C)8394/2016& Connected matter Page3of[5] has lapsed in view ofSection 24(2)ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.The Petitioners rely upon the decision dated 9'*^ October,2017 passed by this Court in WritPetition(Civil)8718/2016(AjitSingh v. Govt ofNCT ofDelhi& Ors)where in respectofidentical acquisition proceedings,such a declaration was issued.

4. From a perusal ofthe said order,it is seen that the plea was taken by the Government ofNCT ofDelhi before this Courtthat possession ofthe land in question was taken over and handed;over to the beneficiary department on 21®^March,2017. It wasfurther stated that: "However, the compensation amount is not paid. As per Naksha Muntazameen the above said lands are Gaon Sabha land. The Petitioner is not recorded owner of the above said land."

5. In para 5 of the order, the Couif noted that "there is no material on. record to substantiate the plea that the lands in question were owned by Gaon Sabha." f -'■0. 6. Thereafter, relying on the decision of Supreme Court inPuneMunicipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183, this Court held that with possession having been taken over and no compensation having been paid or tendered to the Petitioners in that case or deposited, the land acquisition proceedings to the extent of the 1/8"^ and. llll}'^ shares ofthe two Petitioners were deemed to have lapsed. W.P.(C) 8394/2016 & Connectedmatter Page 4of5-,. 3^1 'V o

7. As far as the present petitions are concerned,an order was passed by this Court on 23^^ October,2017impleading the Gaon Sabha asthe Respondent. Notice was also issued to the Delhi Government. Pursuant thereto,the Gaon Sabha appeared before this Court and also filed a counter affidavit dated.2"'^ Februaryj 2018 enclosing a copy ofthe Khasra for 1991 and 1994 showing thatthe land in acquisition actually belonged to the Gaon Sabha.

8. The said counter affidavit is taken on record. With the copies of the official records showing the Gaon Sabha as the owner having reproduced before the Court,the factual position is that as at present the Petitioners are not the recorded owners and cannot be recognised as such. In that view of the matter,with the Petitioners'title to the land in question being disputed,it is for them to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law, first to establish their ownership ofthe land failing which,the question ofgranting the reliefas prayed for in the present petitions does not arise.

9. In light of the above developments, learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw these writ petitions.

10. The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. S.{^URALIDHAR,J. SANJEEV NJmULA,J. DECEMBER 03,2018 ss W.P.(C)8394/2016& Connected matter Page5of[5]