Full Text
Date ofJudgment: 12''^ October,2018
ISHWAR SINGH AND ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.M.C. Verma,Advocate.
Through: Mr. Roshan Lai Goel, Mr. Kalvindra Gill,Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
LAC/L&B.
Mr.Tarunvir Singh,Advocate for DDA.
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGIlA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANL J.(OralV
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under Article 226 ofConstitution ofIndia filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land comprised in Khasra No.4//14 (4-16), 17 (4-16), 7//21 (5-10) and 17//1/1 (0-10), situated in the revenue estate of village Mubarak Pur Dabas, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') is deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2)ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitatiou and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as'2013 Act')as neither the actual physical W.P.(C)7233/2016 Page[1] of[4] 2018:DHC:8823-DB possession ofthe subject land has been taken nor the compensation in respectthereofhas been paid to the petitioners.
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred, to as 'Act') was issued on 21.03.2003 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 19.03.2004. Thereafter, an Award bearing no. 12/2005-06 was passed on 05.08.2005.
3. Ml-. M.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the actual physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and compensation in respect thereofhas not been paid, thusthe petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2)ofthe2013 Act.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC submits that physical possession ofthe subject land has been taken and compensation has been tendered to the recorded owners, counsel for LAC relies on para 4 and 6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:- "4....As such, at this stage the petitioners cannot contend that the possession is still with them. It is submitted that the petitioners at best are only custodian ofgovernment land as the petitioners were duly paid the huge compensation amounting to Rs. 59,87,285/- in the year 2005 itself The documents executed by petitioners seeking release of compensation are annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 (colly)." W.P. (C)7233/2016 ^of[4] 1\
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered their rival submissions.
6. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that despite several opportunities counter affidavithas notvbeen filed by the DDA.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioners.
8. As per the counter affidavit filed by LAC,the possession of the subject land has been taken on the spot by preparing possession proceedings on 6.10.2005 and the compensation ofthe subject land has been paid to the recorded owners in the year 2005 itself.
9. Having regard to the submissions made and the categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC, the W.P. (C)7233/2016 Page3of[4] (2^ possession ofthe subject land has been taken over on 06.10.2005 and the compensation has been paid to the recorded owners,we are ofthe considered view thatthe reliefso claimed and pressed before this Court by the petitioners cannot be granted.
10. Hence we are ofthe view that the present petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. The writ petition stands disposed ofin above terms. G.S.SISTANI,J. IN SANGITA DHINem SEHGAL,J OCTOBER 12,2018 gr// W.P.