Ramesh Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

1. This is apetition under Article 226 ox^Constitution ofIndia filed by the petitioner seeking a.deciaratiofi tliat: the acquisition proceedings with respect to (00-07) l/2i6''^ share of the land comprised in Khasra No. 89/3/1 (07-16) and 89/3/2 (64-05), admeasuring 72 Bighas 01 Biswa, situated in the revenue estate ofvillage Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Shahdra, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') is deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act') as neither tlie actual physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor the compensation in respect thereof has been paidto the petitioner. W.R(C) 12S/2018 2018:DHC:8664-DB C )

2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 23.06.1989 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 20.06.1990. Thereafter, an Award bearing no. 8/1992-93 was passed on 19.06.1992.

3. Mr. Sunil K Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the actual physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, thus the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. He further submits that his submission is further fortified by the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel further relies on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another, reported at 2017 (6) SCC 751, in response to the stand taken by LAC in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is not the recorded owner Reliance is place'd on para 28 ofthis judgment which reads as under:- "28. Thus, the subsequentpurchaser, the assignee, the successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/landowners/affectedpersons in terms of the compensation ofthe 2013 Act andsuchpersons are entitled tofile a casefor a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is a declaration qua the land wherein indisputably they have an interest and they are affected by such acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot be said W.R(C) 128/2018 that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus standi. "

4. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC has raised an objection that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was not the recorded owner of the subject land and the Gaon Sabha was shown as the recorded owner in the revenue records, hence the petitioner has no right on the subject land. In support of his submissions, counsel for LAC relies on paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:-

W.P.(C) 128/2018 over to the DDA on the spot whereas the compensation was assessed in the name of Gaon Sabha as the recorded owner of the subject land was shown to be Gaon Sabha. "

5. We have heard learned counsels for theparties and considered their rival submissions.

6. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that despite several opportunities counter affidavit has not been filed by the DDA.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken, nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that the objections ofthe LAC regarding locus standi of the petitioner misplaced in view ofthe observations made by the Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust (supra) where the rights of the predecessor-in-interest/subsequent purchaser have been recognized.

8. As far as the objection with regard to maintainability is concerned, we find the same to be misplaced in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra). We are ofthe considered view that, the submissions made by the counsel for the LAC that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was not the recorded owner ofthe subject land, holds no ground.

9. As far as the objection raised by the counsel for the LAC with regard to the land being vested in the Gaon Sabha is concerned, we deem it appropriate to follow a decision rendered by the Division W.P.(C) 128/2018 _ Page 4of[6] a Bench of this court in the case of Sanjeev Solanki Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors, W.P.(C) 1999/2015, decided on 24.01.2017, paragraph 5 ofwhich reads as under:-

perfecting the petitioner's title inasmuch as Mr. Jain has taken the plea in the counter affidavit fded on behalfofthe respondent no.2 that the baon Sabha has been shown as the recorded owner. This fact is disputed by the learned counselfor the petitioner. But, we are not entering into the controversy oftitle which may be sorted out elsewhere. Insofar as the acquisition is concerned, the same has lapsed because neither physical possession was taken over nor compensation was paid. "

10. 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 21.3.2007 and the compensation ofthe subject land has not been tendered to the petitioner as being assessed in the name of Gaon Sabha. 1]. Having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC that the compensation has not been paid in respect ofthe subject land and since the award has been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act with regard to the subject land are deemed to have been lapsed. It is ordered accordingly. W,P.(C) 128/2018 •^; ^ Page 5 of[6] o 1°

12. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the title of the subject land. The question of title of the subject land is left open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction.